Evidence of meeting #104 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was service.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On a point of order, could I propose an alternative? Instead of having five-minute opening statements followed by no questions in person, could we ask our witnesses to make shorter opening statements and allow for a 2.5-minute round per member?
I think that would allow us to get it done before the vote.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
As long as the math works, perhaps we don't allow for opening remarks, which would have taken 15 minutes, and we do allow for one four-minute round of questions each.
Is that something that would be beneficial to members?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
With a 12:45 hard stop...?
I need to abide by that, colleagues, to get my unanimous consent.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I would recommend that we give them the time. We can always submit questions after the fact, as you mentioned earlier. Let's give them the floor.
You guys, it's your show.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
It looks like the only way I'm getting unanimous consent is by allowing you, our witnesses, to provide your opening remarks. Then we, as members, will submit questions electronically. We very much appreciate your time in providing us with those answers.
We'll begin with Mr. Tran.
Mr. Tran, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Is it Mr. Harvey? Okay.
Mr. Harvey, please go ahead.
12:30 p.m.
Eric Harvey Assistant General Counsel, Policy and Legislative Affairs, Canadian National Railway Company
Good day, Mr. Chair and hon. members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting us to discuss the high-frequency rail project.
Canadian National, or CN, is Canada's largest railway, transporting over 300 million tonnes of freight per year over a 30,000-kilometre network spanning Canada and the central United States. CN's mandate is to support Canada's economy by moving freight securely and efficiently to our client markets. The goods we carry are going to and coming from a great many of your ridings; they're essential to everyday life, from cars to clothes, food to raw materials.
A large part of these goods are commodities for export, in support of the Canadian economy. We acknowledge the importance of rail freight in supporting Canada's trade balance and we thank our clients for their trust.
The Canadian railways that transport freight own their own corridors, infrastructure and rolling stock. They're also responsible for their maintenance.
Canadian railways need to make massive investments to increase their capacity and meet the rising demand of their clients while supporting economic growth and jobs. To illustrate this growth, we'd simply like to mention that, in 1994, the last year before CN's privatization, we ran 2.3 million cars originating from Canada. These last few years, we reached 3.5 million cars, representing an increase of almost 55%. CN's current rail system is completely different compared to what it was before privatization. CN has had to invest massively to meet that growth and continue to support the Canadian economy.
We want to emphasize that, last year alone, CN invested $3.2 billion, or 19% of its gross revenues, to maintain the system and increase capacity. Still, the sustained increase in demand for freight service is such that certain segments of the supply chain are at full capacity, or near full capacity.
Canadian railways are subject to a level of service obligations. Simply put, Canadian railways cannot say no, and must, without delay and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver the traffic. Here, the act refers to the freight traffic tendered to railways.
Some of our customers have certainly engaged with you to express the need for more rapid growth or for more service. Recent years have been challenging for the Canadian supply chain. Major and unpredicted variations in demand are part of the new reality that we must collectively deal with. Importantly, this requires network capacity to adjust when needed.
Since the privatization of CN in 1995, Via has operated on CN's network under a train service agreement. Nearly 85% of Via's current service operates on CN's network. This represents a significant commitment for CN.
The coordination of both freight and passenger service presents a sustained challenge. Our freight service has a maximum speed of 55 miles per hour, while Via operates in some segments of our network at 100 miles per hour.
We have two additional comments.
First, increased demand for our freight service is causing more operational conflicts with Via. Nevertheless, we do our best to accommodate Via's operations, understanding that it's not always possible to do exactly as Via wants.
Second, asking one freight railway company to host 85% of the passenger service while its direct competitor provides only a marginal contribution to that passenger service creates an imbalance that must end.
Last September, representatives of HFR appeared before you and explained that their project involves a corridor dedicated to passenger service. The stated purpose is to ensure the long-term viability of both passenger and freight service by removing the inefficiencies and complexities of having both types of train operating on the same tracks.
CN totally agrees with this critical aspect of the project and supports the establishment of a corridor dedicated to passenger service. We welcome HFR's approach in recognizing the importance of protecting railway freight capacity for the growth of the Canadian economy.
At CN, we believe the Canadian vision for rail transportation should be one in which both freight and passenger services can deliver on their respective mandates, including enabling their respective growth. This is why we believe the HFR proposal has many of the right features to provide the long-term rail capacity Canada needs.
Thank you for your attention.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.
We'll now go to Mr. Verster.
You have five minutes, please.
February 29th, 2024 / 12:35 p.m.
Phil Verster President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
Thank you very much, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to talk to you.
We have an extensive program of improvement for our Go network, which will be a multi-billion-dollar project with lots of construction. That will increase the capacity of our network by a factor of around three in terms of ridership, so that's a significant improvement in capacity.
For years now—since 2020—we have worked closely with Via HFR to make sure that the infrastructure we're building and the services we're planning will be capable of accommodating Via. To give you a broad number so you have a mental picture, at Union Station in the busiest hour of the peak, we can currently take 36 trains per hour, and our capacity increases will take that to 80 trains per hour. All of our planning incorporates keeping the capacity and footprint for Via in that design and operation.
For the topical item of this conversation, the thought I'd like to leave you with is that whatever you decide on and whatever the strategies are for implementing Via HFR, they have to be driven by an obsession with what the customer base is you're trying to serve, rather than starting with what the infrastructure solution is. Compare your needs to service customers and secure revenue as a driving force for the infrastructure choices that will have to follow afterwards.
I want to give a sense that the class I freight operators, CN and CP, are integral partners for Metrolinx. We work with these two organizations continuously. They are hugely committed to moving both freight and passengers, and no matter what the operational commercial issue is, we always find a way forward with them.
I can give you another sense in terms of punctuality and services. We have consistently improved our punctuality across our network over the last couple of years. Our trains run over CN track as well as CPKC track, but we own 85% of our network, and our punctuality is in the order of 96% or 97% for our services. Obviously, we already run the high-frequency regular services on Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West.
I just want to leave a last thought with the committee and say the type of product that HFR can be—if it's driven by an understanding of what the real customer markets are that we are serving—can contribute significantly to the economy of Canada.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Verster.
Next, we have Mr. Brazeau.
Mr. Brazeau, you have the floor for five minutes.
12:35 p.m.
Marc Brazeau President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Railway Association of Canada is the voice of Canadian railways.
We represent passenger railways—whether they are intercity like VIA or Tshiuetin, commuter such as Metrolinx or Exo, or tourism railways like Rocky Mountaineer and Train de Charlevoix. We also represent Class one railways like CN and CPKC and shortlines such as SRY in B.C., and QNS&L in Quebec and Labrador.
Every year, Canada's railways move millions of people and 380 billion dollars' worth of goods, including half of Canada's exports. Rail is the safest and greenest mode of ground transportation.
Railways of all types continue to play an essential role moving Canada. Dedicated tracks for passenger and freight are required for Canada to have the rail capacity needed for both to grow.
Any passenger service proposal must demonstrate that freight capacity to handle current and future anticipated volumes can be preserved. Otherwise, we are not supporting Canada's economy. Shippers that depend on freight capacity to move essential goods to communities and international markets depend on rail.
Canada was built by rail. With proper planning, consultation, and strategic decision-making and execution, Canada can continue to build and grow by rail.
Historical context is important. The story of passenger rail is older than Confederation. Railways fuelled the growth of cities in the east and led to the founding of urban centres in the west.
After dominating land transportation from the mid-19th century to the early part of the 20th century, passenger rail ridership fell in the 1940s and 50s as travel by car and plane became more economical.
By the mid-1970s, passenger rail across many parts of Canada's vast geography was no longer economically viable.
To prevent its disappearance and provide a basic level of intercity passenger rail service, the federal government created VIA Rail as a Crown corporation in 1977. VIA trains would run on private freight railway tracks under negotiated track access agreements.
Following continued ridership decline amidst the recession, the federal government rationalized Via's route network in the 1990s. The routes eliminated were primarily on the former CP network. Today, Via operates almost exclusively on CN track.
Via ridership displayed healthy growth in the years leading up to the pandemic. Ridership volumes are recovering strongly from pandemic lows. While passenger ridership grows, Canada's exporters and producers need freight rail services more than ever. Freight rail traffic, along with Canada's GDP, has roughly doubled over the past three decades, and freight demand is only expected to increase.
Freight railways are investing billions of dollars every year to meet that demand safely and efficiently. Any constraint on the ability of freight railways to meet customer demand would directly limit Canada's current and future GDP. We must, therefore, ensure that passenger rail and freight rail can continue to grow and flourish in Canada, in and outside of the Toronto-Quebec City corridor.
If Canada is serious about advancing high-frequency rail, dedicated tracks are not a “nice to have” but a “must have”, and it must be done in a way that fully protects the freight capacity needed for today and the physical space needed to accommodate future growth. Passenger rail, just like freight, must be set up for long-term success. Without growing rail capacity, both passenger and freight, we face a future of higher emissions and more congestion on publicly-funded roads. Dedicated passenger rail tracks in densely populated economic regions are necessary at this important juncture in Canada's history. This must be done strategically, in close consultation with all stakeholders and rail experts, with both passenger and freight backgrounds.
This committee and all involved must carefully consider complex issues like grade separation, crossing safety, track differences, technology and infrastructure, among others. First-mile, last-mile connections and multimodal integration are critical. There is a high degree of complexity in urban centres in places like Toronto's Union Station and Montreal's Gare Centrale.
We are a country that has built big things before, and we can do it again.
Investing in dedicated tracks for passenger rail in the corridor will mean accessibility and economic, environmental and, most importantly, safety benefits.
Mr. Chair, Canada's population is expected to grow by 14 million by the year 2100. We must make wise, informed and inspired choices now. Anything less than dedicated tracks will hold Canada back at a time when we must be moving people, goods, our economy and our country forward.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Brazeau.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses once again for being here and, of course, for their patience with and understanding of the parliamentary process.
If there are any questions that you may have for these witnesses, I'm going to invite all members to please submit them to me or to the clerk. We will make sure to get those to our witnesses and will include the responses in what we submit to the analysts.
With that, this meeting is adjourned.
