Transport Committee on May 14th, 2009

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I was going to ask whether you'd let Mr. Langan respond. He was going to try to....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Did you have a comment, Mr. Langan, very briefly?

[Paul Langan]

You know that 50 years Cliff talked about? All we're talking about now is giving people an option that the rest of the world already has. This is not about whether I should take the bus or my car or the train. It's giving me the option.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have a couple of things. First, I'm wondering if you can comment a little bit more--both of you have addressed this in some of the questions--on the need to essentially have a freight line and a high-speed rail line. Obviously, that adds a fair bit to the price tag for those who would just imagine that we can stick a fast train on the lines we have.

I appreciate hearing about the studies that are being done. But do we already know what that means? In other words, how would the economics of the existing line be affected? Because obviously, they would be. Does it open up more spots for freight? How well utilized is that line? If we take a great deal of the passenger traffic, or all of it, off that line, what does that mean for the economics of what remains, and so forth?

[Cliff Mackay]

I'll give you one example. The CN main line between Montreal and Toronto was running, a year ago--it's less today--when they were operating in a different kind of economy, roughly 85 trains a day, both ways. About a dozen of those trains were VIA trains. They were running roughly 70-plus trains a day.

If you go to a higher-speed model, as it was laid out, you have to anticipate that you're going to try to improve the frequency of the VIA trains. So you may end up with 20 or a few more a day. However, if you look at economic growth over time, and if we achieve some of the things we would like to achieve, with the development of the Port of Montreal and all the other things we want to do, I don't see any scenario in which the number of freight trains on that line is not also going to have to go up. I don't know how much, but it will be significant.

In the days before the recession, our freight traffic was growing at 5% plus per year. When you opt for that option, yes, you save money in the short term, and yes, you may be able to improve service for a period of time. However, you are going to look down the road at an eventual conflict between those traffic patterns. Because sooner or later, you're going to run into a capacity issue of significant degree.

The question is whether you bite the bullet now, put in the separated systems, with the higher speeds, knowing that it's going to have more front-end costs but in the long run will give you a more effective system, or not.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Just to be clear, if Mr. Langan also wants to comment or if you want to say anything supplementary....

I'm assuming that the most viable way of looking at this is separate lines. I was hoping to get just a little more precise information on what that does to the viability of the existing line, how that would work, and whether there would be any potential, beyond regular growth, for other utilization if the passenger trains were then diverted.

[Cliff Mackay]

If you diverted the passenger trains off most mainline freight--there are some exceptions for short lines and remote service--it would have very little economic impact. They would improve their volumes over time and probably be able to operate more efficiently because they'd have fewer constraints.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. That's the answer I was looking for.

[Paul Langan]

Again, we're still going to have regional rail service. High-speed does not eliminate that. In fact, if it's all tied in it all works together.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

My other question is really around our capacity as a country to embark on this kind of project. Perhaps people will want to see this only in terms of partisan finger-pointing, but it's a little bit of an indictment of anybody who's been involved in this in the sense that we've gone through iterations of things.

Just to understand, though, is there a serious amount of capacity that exists today? In the last session, for example, we heard from the people charged with conducting the study, and I think they had three people working in the Ministry of Transportation. In the 1995 study it looked like there were more. That's a very simplistic way to look at capacity, but.... The irony that troubles probably everybody around the table is that we have some companies that win contracts in every other country in the world, so we have some of that commercial capacity. Do we have the government capacity? Do we have the ability, the know-how? All of these things need people inside of government to move things forward.

Has that been a factor in the delay that we've seen that is coming to a boil?

[Cliff Mackay]

I can't say it's been a factor, but the government has committed to a PPP or a triple P--whatever jargon you want to use--a public-private partnership office. It's in the process of being staffed. The person they've brought in to run it is a very experienced individual. I would expect that if the government decided to move on something like this, that would be the ideal place to manage it, from a public sector interest point of view.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Are you speaking about the PPP office in the finance department that just started?

[Cliff Mackay]

That's correct.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

But that fund has been sitting there since 2007, I think.

[Cliff Mackay]

I agree, but that would be the way I would recommend the government look at managing its interest. Obviously there are other interests, the usual safety and other oversight interests, but from the point of view of managing the government's economic and broader interests, that would be my recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Langan, do you have a comment?

[Paul Langan]

Yes, I think we've had some really good presentations at our symposiums from people who strongly support the California mode, where they have a California high-speed rail authority, a separate body that overlooks it. And that's the whole reason--to have the competence there and to make it happen.

I'm not knocking Transport Canada, but I think the expertise to make it happen, to have a role in it, even as an overseer, is probably not there. So I do believe in the creation of a Canadian high-speed rail authority. It sounds like another bureaucracy, but in California that's why it's happening--and believe me, they have lots of bureaucracy down there, and lawyers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Does the calculation of approximately $20 billion to achieve the corridor include all the parking, the distribution lines, the land acquisition, those types of things?

[Cliff Mackay]

My understanding, sir, is yes. Again, I'm not directly involved in this study, but I know that in past studies the estimates have included those sorts of things.

[Paul Langan]

I just wanted to throw in something about Calgary-Edmonton, because I think you have a belief in that. That study is from 2004, and the government just did one in 2007. I really believe in my heart that if one's going to happen in Canada, that's where it's going to happen first. There are just fewer bodies involved in making it happen, and it's simpler just because they don't have that population sprawl.

As far as your question is concerned, yes, it's already in the 2004 study. Yes, it's easier to make cases for it, because you're basically saying Calgary, Red Deer, and Edmonton. The 2007 study, which, as I said, the government hasn't released because I think it's a very positive thing they're holding on to, says that stuff also.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

On the actual penetration into the cities, like Vancouver or Toronto.... They have a good transportation network, so you really wouldn't need to have the penetration rate into the cities and worry about the corridor there. Is that correct?

[Paul Langan]

In Calgary, the City of Calgary has already bought the land for the high-speed station. In Edmonton, over the High Level Bridge, the city owns it. I know the mayor of Edmonton personally because he made this decision to marry my wife's cousin--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!