Transport Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Did you talk to them specifically about this issue?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Yes, we are talking to CP on all those issues, but again ultimately it is the Government of Canada that is negotiating land rights with landowners. CP will be responsible for building that project, which will be funded by the federal government and the Province of Quebec.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

So there is no answer to my question. We can understand why.

I would like to talk to you about the famous high frequency train in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. I often drive this route. It takes two and a half hours by car. We did our research on your new train, which is basically a turtle that goes by twice as often. It is as slow as the old train, or nearly so, and the trip will take three hours. The advantage the train has over the car is not so much frequency as speed.

Have you done any calculations in the department, have you done an estimate as to how many people would eventually transition from the car to the train, which will not be fast enough? Are you willing to share that estimate with the committee?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know my colleagues are extremely enthusiastic about the high-frequency rail, because it's going to build a project that's never been built in Canada. It will transform the corridor for generations. It will be fast, Mr. Chair. The current proposal has trains going as fast as 200 kilometres an hour. Having said that, we're actually inviting other members of the private sector to propose even faster trains.

I have good news for my colleague. This train will be fast, will be reliable and will be electric. I know that many Canadians and Quebeckers can't wait to ride this new train, which by the way has been talked about for generations. It's only—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

As witnessed by the camera, we just understood that the minister did not have any calculations done or is not willing to share them with the committee. He took a long time to tell us that he does not have any.

The current train was created in the 19th century, and what you are doing is bringing back a train from the 20th century. Countries like Morocco, France, Spain, Japan, and Korea decided they were going to go with a high-speed train, and what we have today is a project where we have 20% of the benefits and 80% of the costs. I guess everybody is wrong except the minister, so we'll take that under advisement.

Minister, I would like to talk to you about Mirabel. I know you have a special fondness for my riding. We have worked together in the past. At the time of the expropriations that led to the construction of the airport, 97,000 acres were expropriated. Today, there are 13 families who do not have access to their land and would like it back before they die. An advisory committee has been set up to move this file forward and for several months now, community members, including the Union des producteurs agricoles de Sainte-Scholastique, have not heard from these people. Would you be willing to make sure that the committee meets again so that justice can be done for these farmers?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, my colleague just made a statement that I cannot just let go without responding to. I don't know why he's not taking yes for an answer.

We're building the HFR project for the modern history of Canada, for the era of—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I asked the minister a question on a very specific issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll just let the minister answer your question, Mr. Garon.

Before we do that, Mr. Iacono has a point of order.

You have the floor, Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would prefer not to say this, but it's already been not once or twice, but more than three times that the minister has been asked a question by our colleague.

I think, as a matter of courtesy, that the minister should be given time to answer the question. Constantly interrupting him while he is giving his answer makes interpretation difficult. It is a matter of courtesy, even if someone does not agree with the answer or the beginning of the answer. The minister should be given a chance to respond.

We are not debating an issue. We are asking questions of the minister. Someone may not agree with the answer and just need to ask the question again, but we should not interrupt.

If our colleague took a minute to formulate the question, at least give the minister a minute to respond.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

I just want to add one thing. Indeed, it is difficult for our interpreters to do their job when two people are speaking at the same time. So I would ask all members of the committee to give our witnesses a chance to answer their questions.

You have 30 seconds left on your time, Mr. Garon. You have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that there is a rule in committee that the minister has at least the same amount of time as is used to ask a question. Everything is carefully timed here. That is exactly the case.

If Mr. Iacono is offended by my questioning, which is well within the rules, he could use his own time to make his comments to the committee.

I asked a question about the current situation at Sainte‑Scholastique. The minister would not answer it. I am giving him one last opportunity to do so.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chair...

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Iacono wants to speak again.

Is this another point of order, Mr. Iacono?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

My remark was made in good faith in the hope that the democratic process would be followed. I did not make it to insult or embarrass my esteemed colleague.

I am not casting doubt on the questions asked by my colleague. I am simply saying that the minister should have the opportunity to answer them. As you said, the interpreters also need to be able to do their job so that my English-speaking colleagues and all of my colleagues are able to understand well.

And so I hope that...

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

I think we have all understood you.

Mr. Bachrach, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being back at committee and answering our questions.

I would like to pick up on the high-frequency rail conversation. Your government is forging ahead with this project, based on a concept that seems to be receiving less and less support from prominent circles in Canada. People want high-speed rail. High-speed rail has a specific definition. Other countries have trains that go over 300 kilometres an hour, and they've had them for decades. We're way behind the rest of the world when it comes to passenger rail, yet we have a proposal in front of us for Canada's busiest rail corridor that incrementally improves the speed of the service.

I note that there was a resolution from the City of Toronto and the City of Montreal. The mayor of Quebec City has come out, pleading for high-speed rail. Now I see in Le Devoir that there's an article about a dozen prominent members of the Quebec City business community asking for a high-speed train. They want the best-in-the-world service, so that the economy and the quality of life for this region of Canada....

Granted, I come from British Columbia. Rail there is even farther behind what we see in eastern Canada.

We have an opportunity here for the most densely populated region of Canada to catch up to the rest of the G7, to deliver the kind of high-speed service that will get people out of their cars and will stop people from flying these short-haul flights that pollute so much.

I wonder, in the face of all these calls from prominent corners of the business community and municipalities, whether proper high-speed rail is on the table in these conversations that you're having with proponents.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Bachrach, thank you for the question.

It gives me the opportunity to say that our government and I personally want the best project for Canadians. As you said, this is an opportunity for us to build something that will modernize rail service in Canada.

We want to achieve several public policy objectives. One of them is connecting communities. The second objective is to reduce emissions from transportation. The third is offering a convenient, affordable and fast service for those who want to use this rail service.

I'm glad to see that you support our objective of seeking expertise from the private sector to achieve that—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Don't get me wrong, Minister. I think you're putting words in my mouth.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

—speed we want to have.

That's exactly what we want, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

The other challenge with this project is that your government refuses to build it publicly to expand the mandate of our public passenger rail provider to build and operate a new, modern, high-speed rail service. There are a lot of questions. I see a press release here from Unifor and their members who currently work on the trains, and they're opposed to privatization.

This is Canada's busiest rail corridor. It accounts for upwards of 90% of Via Rail's revenue. You said earlier that this project is going to allow Via to focus on its core responsibilities. I would find that offensive if I were Via Rail. Their core responsibility is running passenger trains. It's like saying to a baker, “We don't need you to come into the bakery from Monday to Thursday. We want you to focus on your core responsibilities.” The core responsibility is to deliver passenger rail services.

The expression of interest that you put out there to the private sector takes away potentially 90% of Via Rail's revenue. What's left? It's the guts and feathers of passenger rail in Canada, and it will lead to, I believe, the death of Via Rail as our public passenger rail provider. That's something that nobody in our country wants to see—well, maybe a few people on the Conservative side of the aisle.

Certainly there are a lot of people in the country who want to see a strong and vibrant passenger rail provider that's public. Why not include that in the scope of the project?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think there's a misunderstanding. I assume that it's a misunderstanding in good faith, because this high-frequency rail project will remain a Via project. When I said that we've created a subsidiary of Via to focus on advancing the HFR, it's precisely that. While Via maintains its operations, we need a separate body within Via to focus on building this largest project that Canada has ever built.

I salute my colleague for his enthusiasm for this project, and I'm here to tell him that this is not a privatization of Via. This is delivering on what Canadians expect within Via's mandate, and we are committed to protecting workers' rights. I met with Unifor, and I explained to them that we will make sure that Unifor's benefits, compensation and rights are protected within Via HFR.

This will continue to be owned by the citizens of Canada. This will continue to be a Via project.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Next we have Mr. Muys.

The floor is yours for six minutes.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This past Sunday, it was a beautiful, clear day in the GTA with blue skies and somewhere around 20 degrees. Spring fever was everywhere. People were walking about.

However, this was the situation at Pearson Airport in the departures area of terminal 1. This is the board: Orlando, delayed; Ottawa, delayed; Halifax, delayed; Newark, delayed; Nashville, delayed; Newark, again delayed; Charlottetown, delayed; Montreal, delayed; Quebec City, delayed; Charlotte, delayed; Ottawa, one on time; Sault Ste. Marie, delayed; Winnipeg, delayed; Calgary, delayed.

That was at two o'clock in the afternoon. Those were three of the first 14 flights of the day, so what about the next 14 with already three delays and one cancellation? This is from a constituent who spent five hours on a sunny, bright Sunday afternoon at Pearson Airport waiting on delays.

Toronto's Pearson Airport used to be among the best airports in the world. Now it is the most delayed airport on earth. This has happened under your watch. We've had two emergency meetings of this committee to discuss this, yet this is still happening. When is it going to get fixed?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, my colleagues know that the air sector across the world faced many challenges as we were recovering from COVID. We saw disruptions, delays and cancellations at airports around the world, including here in Canada.

Transport Canada and I have been working diligently with the sector—with airlines, with airports—to improve and to learn from these challenges. I am relieved to say that things are much better than they used to be. In fact, performance is almost back to where it used to be before the pandemic. However, we're not stopping there, Mr. Chair.

We are working on investing in our airports. We are working on strengthening the passenger bill of rights, which protects passengers. We want to make sure that the system is efficient and competitive, and that passengers are protected.

I welcome my colleague's support for our work on strengthening the passenger bill of rights so that passengers, like his constituents, if they are delayed, find the compensation they deserve.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You said that performance is almost back to where it used to be. Is 13 out of 14 flights delayed on a sunny Sunday afternoon normal and to be expected? Are you happy with that?