June 13, 2024

Meeting Summary

Welcome and Introductions

• T. Flynn commenced the meeting at 5:15 p.m.

​

Safety Moment

• In keeping with CN’s meeting protocol to commence with a safety briefing, E. Thome expanded on the safety briefing that was shared at the beginning of the site tour with a reminder of being aware of surroundings, whether its equipment on a construction site or the activities in your day-to-day lives and to look out for others as well, especially as the days get shorter and it gets dark earlier.

​

Land Acknowledgment

• D. Havelka Leen provided a Land Acknowledgement.

​​

Approval of Agenda

• E. Thome asked for additions or changes to the agenda. No additions or changes raised.

• Agenda approved.

​

Approval of August 1 2024 Meeting Summary

• T. Flynn asked for additions or changes to the meeting summary. No changes raised.

• Motion to approve the meeting summary moved by N. Mott and seconded by L. Chambers.

• Meeting summary approved.

 

Dialogue with Janet Drysdale

• T. Flynn welcomed Janet Drysdale to the meeting and invited her to share her perspective on the role of the Committee and how the Committee fits into CN’s overall process.

• J. Drysdale shared her background familiarity with the town of Milton as well as the roles she’s held with CN throughout her career, noting that:

  • She was heavily involved with the Milton Logistics Hub project when she was Vice President of Corporate Development.

  • Her current role is as the first Chief Stakeholder Relations Officer for CN, with overall responsibility for public and government relations, communications, and investor relations.

  • The Community Consultation Committee is the first of its kind for CN.

• J. Drysdale thanked the Committee members for their participation with the Committee, acknowledging that people have busy lives and that it was appreciated the time members take to participate in the Committee, adding that it’s an indication of how much everyone cares about their community.

• T. Flynn enquired how this Committee and community outreach across CN’s network fits into the stakeholder relations remit given that has not been CN’s focus over its history. J. Drysdale stated that CN has been focused on communities but that there has been a lack of consistency in how CN has approached this in the past; that her role has been created and a mandate around engagement is a positive sign about the desire to be consistent going forward; CN’s purpose as an organization is to power the economy and there is work to be done on helping the general public understand that; as a business organization CN works with companies not the public; it has been a weakness in the past of not helping people to understand what CN does and the critical role that CN plays in bringing everyday goods to people’s lives; when there are more significant projects like Milton this type of structure has an important role to play; CN wants to be in touch with communities they operate in, not just when there is a big project but on an ongoing basis; being transparent and truthful with stakeholders about on CN’s direction is important.

• J. Drysdale asked Committee members for their feedback on the effectiveness of the Committee as an engagement structure and asked for constructive feedback.

• A participant referenced the municipal legal action against CN on this project and enquired about CN’s experiences elsewhere. J. Drysdale stated that CN’s experience in Milton is unprecedented as this type of project would not typically go through the CEAA 2012 environmental review process as it would not have met the threshold of needing to go through such a process, adding that projects like Site C hydroelectric dam in B.C. or a facility to handle spent nuclear fuel in Ontario; it is unusual for this project would have been subject to the level of extensive environmental review that it went under; the amount of legal action that has been taken on this project is not something CN has experienced anywhere else across the network.

• A participant expressed appreciation of the level of information that has been provided at all stages of the project and the access to site tours to see firsthand the activities on site. The participant suggested that CN be more proactive in telling its story about its contribution to the supply chain and other positive stories such as the noise monitoring stations and accommodations for the wildlife on site, as the perception of CN within the community is negative based on the narratives of various organizations.

• A discussion ensued about communication methods given the increasing challenges of getting information in front of people, especially when community newspapers no longer exist. A participant reiterated a suggestion to place a sign on the property as a low-tech method of providing notice to the community.

• A participant noted that any major development requires public involvement and there is an expectation of activities such as public meetings, working groups, and signs/notices etc.; the Committee is a good mechanism to build a relationship with a community and the different stakeholders in a community. J. Drysdale noted that the decision not to have a sign on the property was based on not wanting to be presumptive about how the legal situation may evolve but that CN will consider how to move forward with a sign that serves an informational purpose to the community.

• A participant suggested there is value in having youth voices on the Committee, such as a post-secondary student or a future community leader. E. Thome noted that while they strive for diversity on the Committee, diversity in age range had not been considered and that is an area that can be explored further.

• A participant noted CN’s continued support for agricultural activities on site and the value of CN’s presentation to a stakeholder group which left a positive impression. J. Drysdale noted that there are opportunities for CN to communicate more and to pivot to be more present within the community.

• A participant acknowledged respect for all the members of the Committee but registered opposition to the location of the project; that the Committee checks a box for CN and stated that CN would have been mandated to create a committee regardless. The participant understood that the purpose of the Committee was to address the issues that need to be mitigated and to bring concerns from the community for CN to address; the participant expressed concern that some members look to CN to fund activities; the participant noted that the good work being done on site does not address the impact of the 1,600 truck trips on the community, adding that CN controls only 20% of those trucks; the participant noted negative experiences with CN representatives in earlier phases of the project’s development. J. Drysdale stated that she can’t change what happened and offered an apology for negative interactions with CN.

• J. Drysdale stated that CN is doing a lot more than the bare minimum of checking a box and that CN is trying to hear and to mitigate and to do what’s possible in the context of this is the property CN owns, and this is the project CN is trying to build. CN is doing what it can to be a responsible citizen in the community.

• A participant noted being involved with the CN project team prior to the being a member of the Committee and has had respectful, thoughtful interactions with CN representatives and that good ideas have been brought to the table that CN has listened to. The participant expressed appreciation for CN’s sustainability and biodiversity work.

• A participant noted the importance of the project not only to Milton’s economy but also regional, provincial, and federally and critical to our supply chain. The participant commended the Committee co-facilitators for the level of thoroughness and attention to detail, explaining that all issues tabled during meetings are noted and are followed up on, adding that CN welcomes feedback.

• A participant noted that Milton Today is a new online publication that could be useful method to communicate with the community.

• A participant stated that transparency on the Committee has never been a question and that there is always an open discussion, members do their homework, and the Co-Facilitators ensure that everyone is involved.

• A participant noted that there is a lack of information about the project among key stakeholders and elected officials.

• A participant enquired about the Federal Court of Appeal decision on October 4 and whether the Town has further mechanisms to appeal; the participant noted that tax dollars are being spent on litigation instead of other community priorities such as affordable housing. D. Reynolds stated that Halton Region has 60 days to file a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

• J. Drysdale thanked the Committee for their feedback and time and reiterated a commitment to continue to listen and to work together.

• J. Drysdale departed the meeting at 6:25 p.m.

 

Committee Business

• Cultural Heritage Sub-Committee Update

  • W. Roberts provided an overview of the recent activities of the Sub-Committee, noting that Milton Transitional Housing continues to explore the reuse of the house at 5381 Tremaine Road. W. Roberts explained that Milton Transitional Housing is looking to develop a project for single men experiencing homelessness; there is currently no program in Halton addressing this need; Milton Transitional Housing helps people through two years if they’re at risk or experiencing homelessness.

  • E. Thome added that the Sub-Committee continues to look at salvage opportunities for the house and barn on the other CN-owned property.

  • E. Thome extended an invitation to other members of the Committee to join the Sub-Committee.

• Website Review

  • T. Flynn provided an overview of the Committee website as a vehicle separate from CN for the Committee to share information with the community. A discussion ensued regarding additional content that could be included on the website such as individual contact information; a discussion ensued about contact details, and it was decided that one general email would be used for the public to contact the Committee to ensure transparency.

  • Content on the website will include documents such as: Committee Terms of Reference, Meeting Agendas, Meeting Summaries, Bi-annual Newsletter; etc. The site will also include an option to sign up for email updates.

  • E. Thome stated that there are different voices on the Committee, and it is important to balance what is the Committee’s role to communicate versus what is CN’s role.

  • E. Thome noted that the Committee newsletter would be posted on the website and the Committee will be notified by email once it is available on the website.

  • T. Flynn shared the hyperlink to the website and encouraged Committee members to review the website and provide feedback before the website is made public.

 

Project Update

• Decision Tracker Review

  • E. Thome led a discussion on the latest updates to the document, including the sea lampreycide follow-up program (see Invasive Species Update below), the landscape plan, and Indigenous representation on the Committee.

    • D. Reynolds stated that the landscape plan is still being developed and will be shared with the Committee once that is done.

    • D. Reynolds noted that Theresa Nelson, Manager, Indigenous Relations was unable to join the Committee site tour as her flight was cancelled; Theresa will attend a future meeting and speak with the Committee about CN’s Indigenous engagement with respect to the Milton project as well as CN’s broader Indigenous engagement work. E. Thome added that the Huron Wendat’s representative on the Committee, Dominic Ste-Marie, was a valuable resource for information and insight to get the Indigenous perspective.

  • D. Reynolds noted that CN maintains strong relationships and continued direct dialogue with Indigenous groups on this project but that resourcing challenges has prevented them from participating on the Committee. Six Nations of the Grand River did a site tour recently and a site tour for the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation is being arranged.

• Invasive Species Update

  • R. Chiu explained the process of the effectiveness of the sea lamprey program, stating that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which is made up of representatives from Canadian and U.S. departments; in Canada it is organized by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Canadian Coast guard; each year in September/October they post a treatment schedule for the year which states which tributaries or creek that is linked to a Great Lake that will undergo a sea lamprey spraying; Indian Creek was not posted; CN will keep track of what is posted and when Indian Creek or Tributary A is posted. E. Thome enquired how the Committee would be kept informed of this information. R. Chiu stated that CN could provide an annual update when the information is available. D. Reynolds noted that sea lamprey larvae have not been found on site since the spraying. R. Chiu added that the treatment schedule prioritizes areas with the most serious sea lamprey presence.

 

Parking Lot Questions/Issues/Other Business

• E. Thome thanked the Committee for their participation over the past year and in appreciation of the members involvement and commitment, she and T. Flynn made a donation to Tree Canada in their name.​

​​

Adjournment

• T. Flynn thanked all members for their continued interest and participation in the Committee and for their input during the meeting.

• Next meeting December 5, 2024 (virtual) at 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

• The meeting concluded at 6:45 p.m.