Transport Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

One of the previous witnesses we had on before was from one of the bus companies, and he seemed to be generally opposed to high-speed rail, unless it was a public-private partnership in which his parent company would be a partner. I didn't ask him about that.

What's your attitude on the public-private partnership issue versus public ownership?

[Phil Benson]

I was going to say, considering that it's probably an $8 billion or $10 billion project, they must have awfully deep pockets.

On the P3 issue, I think we would rather stick with the issue of whether it's a good idea to investigate and to look at it. The funding issue is something that will be determined. It will be whatever is best. If you look at Bombardier, Lavalin, or PCL, there are lots of major construction companies that are up to it. There are various players, etc.

I guess with VIA Rail we wouldn't have to worry about that right now. In the future, we'd have to look at that. As we said, we're tentative about saying yes, go ahead. Which route do you want to take—the south shore or the existing CP right-of-way that's not used, going down through Peterborough up to Ottawa, that way? It's 80 kilometres shorter. It might be a better route. It might have greater advantages. They all have pluses or minuses. Until we see a concrete “here's this, and here's that”, we can't really put our mind to it. At this point, really, we're all blue-sky thinking here.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Do any other members on the panel have any comments to make about whether there should be public-private partnerships or just government-owned projects?

[Grant Hopcroft]

I would just agree with Mr. Benson. I think that's an issue that one will need to look at when you look at what the ridership levels will be, what the capital costs are, and what the best technology is.

[Phil Benson]

There are lots of discussions about one mode saying this and one mode saying that; they get this benefit and we get that. The truth of the matter is that rail subsidizes road through taxes on diesel. Every single mode has different aspects to it. When you think intermodal, you realize that a lot of it is complementary or supplementary. It's how we get a win-win, it's not whether somebody pays a nickel more or a nickel less, or something else.

In the end, the thing is whether this project makes sense economically for today or, more importantly, for the future. Is it environmentally sound? Is it something that we want to do? Do we think we can get a lot of infrastructure from this, not just the building but also spinoffs? Cities like London...which is a great city, by the way. I've been there many times. I love London. So you did a good job, and I'll reiterate that it's a great city. So is Quebec City, and so is Laval. I've visited them all through that corridor.

I think that's something the House of Commons should be looking at--not at this as just a rail line but at what else it can do for the country, both through international agreements and also for locals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to keep moving. We're pretty nearly out of time.

Before I go to Mr. Watson, if we're doing shameless promotion, I'd just let you know that Brandon was number 10.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That was shameless, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today.

Of course, we are conducting a study on high-speed rail in Canada. Our focus has primarily been with respect to the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. I have a question. As we've been unpacking this a little bit with some of our witnesses, at least a couple of them--including one of our previous guests, Transport 2000 Canada--have hinted that the proper context for this study is probably a lot broader than what the committee has begun with, and that we should see it with a suite of other measures--with connected intercity rail operations, for example. How do our transportation systems link into high-speed rail? Would you agree with that, first of all, and agree that the committee should perhaps consider, if necessary, broadening the scope of its study a little bit to more than just the specific Windsor-Quebec City corridor high-speed rail issue?

I'd like some guidance for the committee.

[Grant Hopcroft]

I see no reason why you shouldn't look at other options where there is sufficient ridership to make a decent business case. I know that in the past the Edmonton-Calgary corridor has been looked at. There's been talk of connections south from Vancouver. Certainly, given the intentions of the new President south of us to promote high-speed rail in a variety of corridors, it makes sense from the perspective of international trade, and certainly trade in professional services, as one example, for us to look at interconnection with the links that are going to be created south of the border.

[William Brehl]

I'd just like to say that every study I've looked at--and there have been quite a few, I think, since 1987 when I saw the first one--has stated that high-speed rail has to be a part of an integrated transportation system and network. It can't stand alone to get full benefit.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

You bring up the issue of the business case here, and having sufficient ridership, for example. I'm looking at the populations of countries in Europe, for example, where high-speed rail exists. Some of the larger urban centres are certainly, both in terms of density and absolute numbers, a lot larger than what we're talking about here in Canada. In fact, even the United States has 10 times the population, but it's also a smaller country than we are so there are higher densities. In fact, California alone, as my colleague has reminded me, has the same population as all of Canada.

Where does the business case exist? Can it actually be from Windsor to Quebec City, for example? I'll be frank with you: I'm a little doubtful about at least Windsor to London. I'm not quite sure whether a case exists there yet. This is obviously not going to be something that's widespread in Canada. Where does the business case exist within that corridor? How far can we actually take this?

[Grant Hopcroft]

Well, I think one of the things is not to just look at ridership on a specific train and what existing travel patterns are. I think we need to do modelling that looks at the potential for growth in different modes and the impact that construction of a high-speed rail corridor can have on the need for us to expand our existing highway infrastructure. If you want to talk about a system that's heavily subsidized, it's the roads. People simply have to have a vehicle and be prepared to pay for their gas and whatever the taxes are on that at the time. We can't continue to keep widening these roads.

The beauty of rail is that you can increase frequency without having to increase your base infrastructure, and you can carry a remarkable number of passengers without having these kinds of significant incremental costs that you have when you widen Highway 401 or you widen the Queen Elizabeth Way in some of the very restricted corridors we have now.

We're suggesting you need to look at the impact and the benefits, some of which don't have a financial price tag, some of which do, but all of which have an impact on the way we live and the way people's health is affected as well.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have another question here. Mr. Brehl, I think you talked about embarking on a project of this scope. Obviously, I think we'd probably all agree that the federal government, or governments, if you will, would be involved in the financing of something like this, for a project of that scope.

I think you had made a statement somewhere in there that this was going to help with respect to economic stimulus. I just want to be clear: I don't think any of you presupposed that this could be embarked upon within the next couple of years. In other words, it's not going to affect the current downturn.

[William Brehl]

It's not right now, not at this time.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. I was going to say that by the time you get engineering, environmental assessments, and other approvals, then you're--

[Phil Benson]

It would be 10 years.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

How early do you think we could start it, though?

[Phil Benson]

You could at least start looking at studies. When you're looking at the existing patterns, people tend to view what's happening now as what will happen forever. You know, a $150 barrel of oil changes everything. Looking forward, if not in the next 10 years then certainly for our children, that may be cheap oil. When we're looking at a business case today--I know we're rail and road--multi-modal is coming, and more stuff is going on trains. It's what's going to happen once it gets over $100 a barrel, and it's going to come in a flood.

Again, when we're planning now, we're really looking at what it's going to be in 10 or 15 years. At $150 a barrel, it will look darned cheap to have, basically, a subway going from London to Toronto. That's really what you'd have. That's not too bad. In fact, the ridership may be quite exceptional at that price.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The time has run out.

I'd like to thank our guests again for being here. I appreciate your input, as always. Thank you.

For the committee members, on Tuesday, June 2, we continue. We have the City of Kingston, Canadian Airports Council, and the Cement Association of Canada. On Thursday, June 4, we have Thales, VIA Rail, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. For June 9, we're aiming for the City of Montreal and the City of Quebec.

Have a good weekend. Thank you, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.