Transport Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

Certainly. As you mentioned, we always strive to be ahead of the innovation curve, and that goes to the core of our competitiveness as a global firm. Whether it's in the rail transit business or in the aerospace business, we're constantly thinking about the next products we should put in the marketplace that will make sure the company is always at the forefront of what customers need.

I mentioned in some of my comments the intensity of the research and development investments we're doing now. There was a lull for a few years because a few years ago the priority was to put the company back onto a solid financial footing, but in the last three to four years we have been working on six new aircraft development programs on the aerospace side. That's a lot to take on.

In the investment community, people will wonder whether our risks are adequately managed. We feel very confident that even in this current economic downturn, we have to make those long-term investments. We're talking about the CSeries, the global aircraft manufactured in your riding. We have two new programs on the go, the Global 7000 and the Global 8000, new Learjet aircraft, and the same on the rail side. We constantly try to position ourselves ahead of the curve. Paul talked about the ECO4 technologies that are critical to the success of the company.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Poilievre, for seven minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The first question is for Mr. Fuller.

Is temporal separation something the government would have to regulate into existence, or is it something the government would allow to happen?

[Garry Fuller]

It's something I believe the government would have to allow to happen. I don't know what you did here in Ottawa, but in the New Jersey area, the transit purchased the old rail line. When they did that, they negotiated with the existing railroad as part of a temporal type of operation.

I'd have to look at your rules. I'd have to make sure which way you would go, but you can either regulate it from a federal standpoint or.... I don't know how to say which way would be the best way to go for you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I guess I'm asking whether it is permitted right now under the rules. What's stopping it from happening?

[Garry Fuller]

The only thing stopping it now, I believe, would be a community wanting to have that type of service. That's the only thing probably that's stopping it. I don't know.

Paul, do you have any ideas?

[Paul Larouche]

In the case of the O-Train, OC Transpo and Bombardier had to demonstrate to Transport Canada that we had the technology and the processes in place to make sure that there's never any possibility of both types of trains being on the segment of railroad that's concerned here at the same time. Once we demonstrated that—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So that's allowed already.

[Paul Larouche]

It's not a regulatory obstacle, but there is some risk. What do I have to demonstrate? I'll be sitting in front of a Transport Canada person. How much is he going to require? Some kind of definition—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'll be very specific. Is there any instance you're aware of where this has been prevented by Transport Canada?

[Paul Larouche]

No, but there's a certain element of commercial risk in the unknown. If there was some kind of regulation—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I understand that, but we can't control that.

[Garry Fuller]

In the United States we have Rule 213.345, and that's a rule whereby if we wanted to do this, we would have to run tests. We would have to run the test for the track and for the speed. The public would have to be involved with it and local legislation would have to be involved with it before we could do it in the States.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

And here?

[Garry Fuller]

I would imagine the policy is probably very similar. You're talking about mixed traffic, and therefore what takes place is the safety of the people. That's the number one concern.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I realize that. I'm trying to be very specific about what we can do here. You want to use existing rail lines for mixed traffic, freight lines for passenger transportation. Is that right?

[Garry Fuller]

Not all, no. I'm speaking about smaller cities, for example; I'm not talking about transcontinental Canada. I'm not talking about major lines where you would run VIA-type trains and all that. I'm speaking mainly about the transit type of activity.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'm simply having a hard time understanding what you want us to do for you.

[Garry Fuller]

I don't want you to do anything for me. What I'd like you to do for yourselves is be aggressive in the selection of European-style equipment, because their technology is so far advanced from what we have right now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

We're not buying any equipment. It's the private sector or the municipality running a transit line that would buy the equipment.

Is there anything in the regulations that prevents us from buying European-style equipment right now?

[Garry Fuller]

Right now you'd have to convince Transport Canada, I believe.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

To do what?

[Garry Fuller]

Under the UIC type of rules, you'd have to buy that style. You wouldn't have to have the crashworthiness. There are a lot of different things that come into play.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So there would have to be an exception made in order to purchase that technology. Is that what happened with Ottawa's O-Train? Is there some sort of exception for it?

[Paul Larouche]

When you're demonstrating that there is no possibility of both types of equipment operating at the same.... During the temporary separation portion of the day, the regular rules don't apply. Since there is no possibility of the trains meeting, that doesn't cause a problem.

One thing I'd like to add is that many times people have asked me, “Why don't we have high-speed rail trains in North America?” I know that's not exactly the technology we're talking about here, but the answer for a long time has been that the North American rules did not allow the UIC equipment to be operated in North America. The Federal Railroad Administration rules, Part 238, which Garry referred to, have been preventing it.

The FRA moved at a glacial pace for 10 years—