Evidence of meeting #45 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was technology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank, you Mr. Chair.
This morning a motion was moved and we all had the chance to read it. I would like to talk about it for just a few minutes.
Last spring, I had an inkling of this when I read a VIA Rail press release about the modernization of VIA Rail services. A warning bell went off about modernization and re-engineering. Usually, in my experience, this has never met with great success.
Nevertheless, I thought I had to give the benefit of the doubt because the press release seemed very clear. It announced that there would be service reductions. At the same time, it announced enhancements to VIA Rail services and that, on some lines, for example, there could be more flexibility in scheduling and a larger number of departures and arrivals.
Since then, we have seen that the modernization of VIA Rail services seems to be centred on cutting services, connections and, now, lines, with absolutely catastrophic economic consequences for certain regions in eastern Quebec, and also for the line that links New Brunswick, among others.
I admit that I have difficulty understanding the rationale of modernization. I am not being sarcastic. I can only believe that they are making cuts. For that reason, and with this motion, it would be interesting to talk to VIA Rail representatives about their views on the development of passenger rail service in the next few years as a driving force for economic development in Canadian regions.
As we all know, this country was built around the railway and I do not believe that the time has come, especially in light of major environmental concerns, to drop rail service. However, there are fears about passenger services.
That is the thrust of the motion. We would like to conduct a short study, meet with officials and discuss with them their vision for the future of VIA Rail services.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is the third major round of VIA cuts since it was formed in 1977. The current cuts will reduce the frequency between Halifax, Moncton, Miramichi, and Montreal; between Montreal and Ottawa; between Toronto and Niagara Falls; between Toronto, Stratford, London, and Sarnia; between Toronto, Brantford, London, and Windsor; and between Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver.
VIA claims that this is modernization and a taking of action to better meet customer demand. It makes little sense. To eliminate service and drive away customers is not to deal with customer demand.
It's especially puzzling when one considers the strategic expansion under way on other passenger railways around the world. Canada's stance is in stark opposition to what's going on even in the country to the south of us, the U.S., where rail expansion is going on at a tremendous pace. At the same time that we in Canada are reducing, they maintain.
VIA claims that it has nothing to do with the reductions in their budgets. But by way of fact, the budget was cut by $6.5 million this year; two more cuts will reduce it by $15.1 million in 2013 and by $19.6 million in 2014. There will be future cuts as a result of these budget cuts, and it's the expectation that they will be even more severe.
Inside sources suggest that all service between Toronto and Niagara Falls; between Toronto and Sarnia; and between Montreal, Gaspé, and Victoria-Courtenay will be eliminated. The future of the two remaining eastern and western transcontinental trains is not secure, as far as we can tell.
Transport Canada is currently conducting an internal and highly critical review of VIA's future, but the public is not being asked for input on this project, which will decide VIA's fate. Nor are we in the transportation committee being asked for our input on this project.
These cutbacks come after we have just spent $923 million to renew VIA's capital. It makes little sense to renew a transportation system that then reduces many of its services.
VIA says additional trains will be added in the Toronto-Montreal triangle at a time to be determined. But if the national train system is to be limited to Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, why have a train system? Why are we doing this? And why spend $923 million of good capital to invest in a train system if we're not going to have a train system?
Canadians want a train system. They want to be able to take an environmentally friendly transportation system. The train is the only environmentally friendly transportation system that we use, and many other countries are investing in these things.
VIA's investment program has run into serious problems, ranging from the insolvency of one firm contracted to rebuild the bulk of its rolling stock to cost overruns and demands by one freight railway for more investment in infrastructure projects on its lines that weren't factored into VIA's original budget.
VIA is apparently constantly at the beck and call of the freight railways, who own most of the infrastructure. Passenger rail comes second. It shouldn't.
The cuts will not improve VIA's service, nor will they boost its financial performance. Other passenger railways have proved that reducing train frequency doesn't pay; it costs.
The best example is found on Amtrak. That quasi-public corporation has completed studies and has determined that it actually costs money to reduce service, because employees and equipment have a one- or two-day turnaround delay, during which employees receive held-away pay and equipment sits idle, without generating any ticket revenue. Amtrak is now expanding its service.
But it's discouraging to hear VIA President Marc Laliberté say that passenger trains don't make sense for distances of 800 kilometres or more. A quick look at the maps and timetables of rail passenger systems around the world prove that this is a mistaken viewpoint. The U.S. and Europe are served by modern, efficient trains operating on numerous routes of 1,000 kilometres or more.
If we're to compete globally, we need to improve our passenger service. We're not competing globally by deleting our passenger service. Redesigning, modernizing, and renewing means providing more service, not less. The biggest driver of acceptance of rail service is the frequency of service. If the frequency of service disappears, fewer people will use it, not more.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you very much.
I'm going to call the vote.
All those in favour of the motion, please signify.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
It's not going to the steering committee. You sent it here, Olivia.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
It has to come through this committee. I can't just send a motion to the steering committee.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm agreeing you can't send it there. It's coming before the committee and we're going to vote.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
If it's dealing with a study, the natural thing is for it to be considered at steering committee, Mr. Chair. That's normally how it's done.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
You brought it up here and we're going to vote on it, and of course depending on the outcome of the vote, then—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
A recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. We'll see you all here in 12 days.
The meeting is adjourned.
