Evidence of meeting #20 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was railway.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to go back to clause 44 of the bill, which amends the bill by adding section 152.1. I correctly understood that this amendment will facilitate negotiations with the railway companies, and you have the full support of the Bloc québécois in that respect.
Mr. Bélanger, I would like you to give me some examples so that we can better understand this amendment. When we meet with the railways, they tell us that negotiations are going very well and that everyone is always in good faith. However, the amendment will probably add some elements.
Raynald Bélanger Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
We have to be careful when we cite examples because we have confidential contracts. So I can't cite figures because that would lead to a breach of contract.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
So the context is a difficult one. For example, when the draft revision of the act was done, the arrangement we had with Transport Canada was that CN would allow the department to have access to the contracts so that it could examine them and form an opinion about them.
However, perhaps I can give you some examples of new projects, regarding railway infrastructure costs, for example. Those are examples of operating costs because the operating contracts are technically confidential.
With respect to railway investments, I also have to be careful because that could also be interpreted as being confidential, but the project is currently under way.
I can give you the example of the construction of a two-mile section of railway line. We have examples that confirm that, under the worst-case scenario, that could cost between $2.5 million and $3 million, and we estimate it will cost $6 million.
As you can see, it's difficult. We don't have access to the details; we're operating in that dynamic. Whether it be for a $5 investment or a $10 million investment, you have to fight the same fight every time in order to try to find reasons to justify the cost, particularly when you build on a railway right of way.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So that means you were forced to agree, whereas now mediation will...
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
At one point, the three of us decided — we're called the three amigos — that was enough. We met and we defended ourselves, particularly since the review of the act was under way. We took that opportunity to have a debate. We made similar submissions to the committee reviewing the act, and we were heard; that, moreover, is reflected here. That's why we're continuing our efforts in that direction. We think this is an opportunity to establish a base where there will be an arbitrator and minimum ground rules. In that way, we'll be able to make good progress with the railways in the next few years. It's currently an open playing field. So each party is trying to beat the other, in a way, which ultimately isn't conducive to very healthy negotiations or dealings.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
What the industry tells us is ultimately that there will never be any negotiations and that the board will always be forced to decide. I don't think that will be the case because there are a number of criteria.
I'd like to hear what you have to say on the subject.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
Freight clients are always at the agency trying to correct matters. That forces everyone to be reasonable at the outset. To some degree, demands are reasonable, so no one is interested in repeatedly going to the agency because it's a very laborious process that demands a lot of time. No one has any interest in appearing before the agency.
However, we think there may be exceptional cases where principles will have to be debated. At that point, we'll go ahead, but that won't be the rule. Things will settle down; there will be a healthier climate. Once people know that a certain type of relationship has been established, they respect each other more. However, when you know that it's an open playing field, there's no respect, they don't trust the other party. That can become mutual.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'm taking the liberty of going back to clause 39 because it adds an element in the case of reassignments of railway lines. When a railway decides to reassign railway lines, you become a player on the chessboard.
I spoke with Transport Canada representatives. Have there been times when you would have liked railway lines to be abandoned and to have discussions on the subject because the railway companies were not using them, but had nevertheless decided to keep them? I know Transport Canada told us that this bill did not touch on that aspect, but have there been situations in which you would have liked to intervene, cases in which, in certain respects, the companies didn't show any interest in railway transportation, but perhaps only wanted to increase the value of an abandoned line?
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
There are obviously those kinds of examples. The line between Dorion and Rigaud, where freight hasn't been transported for a number of years now, is an example of a situation in which the railway is holding on to the property. We're currently negotiating with the company to buy it because it should be rebuilt. Now, of course, it's worth a lot of money.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That's what we're told. Perhaps we would have liked to be able to force them to negotiate, but we'll see what we can do with this bill.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
First, they have to declare that the line has been abandoned. There will be a similar case in Quebec, between Marieville and Saint-Hubert, where the railway has officially declared the line abandoned. At that point, the company looks at all the local lines. If no one wants it, it offers it to the Government of Quebec. If the government doesn't want it, it offers it to the municipalities. But we aren't included. I think we're ranked after the government, in second.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That's fine.
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I want to take the opportunity, Mr. Bélanger, to confirm that you are satisfied with the content of the bill as it stands. Perhaps you could make a final comment on the subject.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
[Inaudible - Editor].
Bloc
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.
You've been very eloquent, Monsieur Bélanger, Mr. Kelsey, and Mr. McNeil, in saying that essentially you don't see any difficulties with the bill. But you also mentioned in your presentation, Mr. Kelsey, that this has been, in a sense, a reissue or a re-editing of previous bills that have not made it to royal assent.
So I'd like each of you to respond very specifically as to what would happen if the House falls before this bill is adopted, and we're back to square one? Particularly with the issue of mediating, but also with the issue of rail line discontinuance, what would that mean for each of these transit authorities in terms of your plans over the next couple of years if you're having to come back again in two or three years on the same issue?
Managing Director and Chief Executive Director, GO Transit
We have a couple of specific instances. In the case for GO Transit, we have gone through a process with the railways to acquire some railway lines. We own, actually, approximately 30% of the rail corridors that we now operate on.
For us, if the act didn't go through and a rail corridor came up for abandonment, we would pay the monopolistic rate that the railway wanted to charge for the land, and the public sector would pay accordingly--that amount of money. This is too critical an infrastructure to allow it to be abandoned. That's the approach that GO Transit has taken, that if the railways charge an arm and a leg, then we will have to pay an arm and a leg for it, because they have us over a barrel. We really have no choice.
In the case of service, though, we have a situation where CP Rail charges us such a high rate on the Milton rail corridor that we refuse to run any more trains. It's as simple as that. At the rate they are charging, we are saying we cannot afford to run any more trains.
