Transport Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I guess the department and the minister wouldn't have the $1.8 billion as discretionary amounts, but assuming that it were all located in the federal treasury....

Let me put the question a little differently, Ms. Borges. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but it's a general policy question. Has the department ever thought about making a presentation to the cabinet through the Department of Finance for its portion of that $1.8 billion?

[Helena Borges]

I don't know whether in the past that was done, but maybe I can clarify one thing that's really important. I deal with many infrastructure projects, so let me take this opportunity to present to you a bit of a sequencing of what happens.

This study, for example, which will be done by early next year, is going to be a feasibility study. It's a key study in helping inform the governments as to whether they want to proceed. But after that study, there are significant other studies that have to be completed.

One of them would be an environmental assessment study. We probably have to do one, because this study is going to look at possible routing options. We would have to define what the exact routing is going to be. Just doing that can be quite a challenge, because you have to identify which properties are required. Remember that if you're looking at high-speed, you can't choose the existing rail corridor in place today; you're going to be looking at building a whole new corridor. It could be on the same alignment or not. Those are all costs.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Just to clarify that a bit, you mean that you can't use the same rails. But the corridor may be large enough for dedicating different rails; in other words, for expanding the use of a corridor that's already there. The environmental assessment in that regard would probably not be required.

[Helena Borges]

No, it would definitely be required. There are rules in the Canadian Transportation Act about any infrastructure improvements for rail and about when an environmental assessment is required, and the exemption is very limited: it's within a three-kilometre maximum length and within 300 metres of the right of way. This definitely exceeds three kilometres. Something like this, as I mentioned, has to be fully grade-separated, so there would be large amounts of bridge structures, large amounts of grade separations, all affecting various communities. All of that would require environmental assessment work to be completed, and that in and of itself could take a few years and would take significant funds to do.

Then there are the detailed engineering studies about what you're going to do in terms of the construction: the constructability of it, the actual routing of it. You then also need to start looking more in depth at the technology options, because what this study is going to say is that there are such and such possible technologies that could be suited for a Canadian environment and could be adapted to operate in Canada, but you would want to get more precise information on them.

So there would be a lot of upfront work that would be fairly costly and would be necessary, in effect, to make a final decision on where it should go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're way past the time.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Are you going to give me a chance to come back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Ms. Borges, I have read the 1995 study and looked at the 2008 study proposal that you submitted. You gave a bit of background and said that there had been other studies as well.

When did Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin conduct a study?

[Helena Borges]

I believe it was in 1998.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Right. There was VIA Fast in 2003. You do not want to make it public, because you say you would have to ask VIA before releasing it.

[Helena Borges]

Yes, it contains confidential information about the two railway companies. That is why the report is confidential.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Right.

I would not want us to make the same mistakes in our next study as we made in previous studies. I say that because it is clear from the 1995 study that the environment was not a problem at the time. It was not the primary concern. What the study mainly did was estimate the costs at $18 billion for a ridership that did not justify such an investment. Moreover, there was no in-depth analysis with respect to development. I am looking at the recommendations in this report. It says that the impact on tourism and so on would be negligible. There was no market study.

I say that because Spain did not make that mistake. It conducted a study of the economic potential to justify its investment, with the fantastic results it has today. Spain owes its recovery to high speed rail.

We do not get the feeling that this is what the study here is looking to do. The 1995 study focused on costs and impacts on other areas. High speed rail would have hurt air travel, which would have shrunk by roughly 44%. The study did not look ahead. It saw the future through a rear-view mirror, and there was a desire not to hurt other types of industries. There was no in-depth analysis of future potential.

I feel that the study, which you have funded to the tune of $1 million with Quebec, Ottawa and Ontario, is once again about facts. The environment has become an important issue, which was not the case in 1995, and the study is going to take it into consideration. But the Americans have just announced significant investments in a network that would be connected to Canada. I would say that the Americans have embraced a truly proactive vision, and we have nothing that ties in with what they are doing.

In a sense, we still have the same old strategy. Reassure me. Is this really the aim of the study, or are you going to try to be a bit more open to future development?

[Helena Borges]

I would refer you to page 13 of the request for proposal. Section 9, which talks about environmental and social impact analysis, is a very important aspect of this study, in our opinion. We have asked the consultant to look at this in detail. We want to have a better understanding of how such a service will affect the environment and Canadians' community life. We also want to know whether economic and social opportunities can be developed thanks to high speed rail service. In Europe, cities that are far from urban centres can engage in other economic activities and create a new economy thanks to that. We want the consultant to look at that.

Urban congestion is also a very important issue to us. I think that one of the main reasons the two provinces want to study this proposal again is the congestion in the major urban centres of Montreal and Toronto. We want to see whether people can be encouraged to take high speed trains instead of their own cars. The two provinces and the department are already investing heavily in urban transit, with companies such as AMT and GO Transit. We want to see how this system could be connected with the urban systems and the airports. This part of the study will be more detailed than the former study. This is very important to us.

I want to correct one thing, and that is the impression left by the American announcement. We will send you the American press release. The truth is that they announced $8 billion in investments in 10 corridors. These corridors are very short. The longest is 500 miles in length, I believe. It is not like the corridor here in Canada. However, $8 billion for 10 corridors is not very much. Those who wish can submit proposals for these corridors, and if projects to improve the existing corridors are ready to go, then the money will go to them. It is not really HSR, but a way to improve existing services. Perhaps, ultimately, it will be possible to launch a new high speed rail service. When you think about it, it comes down to less than $1 billion per corridor, which is not very much.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

But it is a start. The Americans have the financial capacity to do much more.

[Helena Borges]

Yes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

They will be able to when their economy recovers, Ms. Borges.

Page 13 of the document refers to environmental and social impact analysis. This includes looking at components, previous studies such as drainage basins, land use, noise, congestion and safety. As you know, that is important to economic development.

Even section 11 on page 13, which refers to economic and financial analysis, talks more about public-private partnerships. There is no long-term vision. I hope I am wrong, because it is necessary to have a long-term vision about this development. We must not just consider current potential. We have to look at the enormous future potential. I do not sense that. I am telling you, even though you refer me to this page—I did not want to bring this up right away—I sense a constraint.

I sat on the Standing Committee on Transport when the VIA Fast project was submitted in 2003, and the Liberals were quite divided on VIA Fast. There were those who wanted it and those who did not. The project died because of those who did not want it. The battle was fought. We will see what the study concludes. I hope we will have the opportunity to read the analysis. There was this fight within the Liberal Party that I feel is not yet over. Time will tell. Interest is all well and good, but when the Liberals are in power, things change.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Mr. Volpe on a point of order, and then I'm going to Mr. Bevington.

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

If the Liberals were divided at the time, it was because they had not yet seen the virtues of the alliance with the Bloc to develop Canadian industry. Now that we have the same goal, we are much better able to do positive things. I appreciate what Mr. Laframboise is saying, but it is not something Ms. Borges can comment on in turn. I hope she will resist the temptation.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, on the same point of order, I just want to say very quickly that there are a lot fewer Liberals here now, so proportionately there's a better chance that they're going to be united.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That was not a point of order.

I'll go to Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That wasn't even a very good observation.

Thank you, Madam Borges.

I'm a little curious. I read the study as well, and the study suggested that the higher-speed rail in 1995 was not very different from the high-speed rail. You were dedicating a line. Is that the same approach VIA took with its VIAFast?

[Helena Borges]

No, the VIAFast would have continued on the same track, sharing it with the freight railways.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

We could assume that the capital cost would be quite a bit lower.

[Helena Borges]

The capital cost was quite a bit lower. In fact, some of the money that was announced in the 2009 budget, and actually in 2007, is going to get close to producing similar results--having portions of the track triple-tracked, trying to deal with bottlenecks in certain key areas--and that will help reduce times and improve the speed somewhat.