Transport Committee on May 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 20. The orders of the day are high-speed rail in Canada.

Joining us today, from Bombardier, are Mr. George Haynal, Dan Braund, and Paul Larouche. With us from Alstom is Ashley Langford, and from Siemens Canada Ltd., Mario Péloquin.

Welcome.

Mr. Volpe.

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

Before you thank our guests for coming here, I wonder if I could raise a point of order, if you don't mind. I just have actually two questions. It's for information more than anything else.

First of all, I know we're coming into the companies that have a specific interest, and that's wonderful; I'm looking forward to their presentations. But I'd like to know about VIA Rail. Did they express an interest in coming? Were they asked, and what was their response?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I can answer that. VIA was invited. They suggested that the Railway Association of Canada would speak on their behalf.

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

But they didn't. Could we re-invite them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We can.

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

Because I think they have a perspective we would profit from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

They did hear the presentation by the Railway Association and said that it would suffice, but we can ask them again. I'd be happy to.

Mr. Jean.

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

Chair, if I may, I quite frankly concur with Mr. Volpe in relation to VIA Rail, particularly given some of the evidence that we've heard from other individual witnesses. Actually, it's consistent with a proposal that I want to make to the committee at the end of today, which is to include light rail inter-city within this study, because we've got discussion generally about high-speed rail and we're not talking specifically about where we're going to connect them to light rail within cities. So I think it would be appropriate to invite them back, because they are the experts on it, especially in places like Montreal and Toronto, and indeed they could possibly at that stage expand the scope of their evidence to include the very thought of light rail within cities and downtown cores to relieve congestion, especially in cities such as Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto.

So I would concur with Mr. Volpe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will re-invite VIA Rail.

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

The second item is.... I'm pleased with the direction we're going here, with people who are taking us on this topic.

I have one more concern in that, according to experts in parliamentary procedure, the committee is obliged to study bills that the House has decided to refer to it. So, do we have a plan in the works to study Bill C-310 soon, or not? Or is the government taking different positions on parliamentary procedure from those that I am told are the correct ones?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I won't speak for the government's position on that, but I can advise the committee that we have witnesses scheduled for Thursday, for the following Tuesday, and the following Thursday. I take direction from the committee, so whatever we choose to do I think would be acceptable to me. I know that the rule in this committee is that we were to entertain, I believe, government bills as they are brought forward, but that's not to say we can't have that discussion.

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

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Monsieur Laframboise and then Mr. Jean.

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

That is fine by me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Merci.

Certainly I want to advise Mr. Volpe and the Liberal caucus that we, as a committee, have given number one priority to government legislation, and of course that has worked out extremely well in terms of our productivity as a committee. But it is our intention to bring forward BillC-310 for the committee to study, and I would suggest we do so subsequent to this high-speed rail study for at least a couple of meetings before the break for constituency time in the summer. I would suggest that first of all we complete this study, and I would like to expand the study, as I suggested, to include the inter-city light rail.

So that would give us probably two days to hear from at least the airlines in relation to Bill C-310 before the summer break and then we could of course go back to that in the fall if it's at all necessary after we hear from the airlines on some of the economic consequences--as we saw in some of the recent articles--and what the airlines suggest will happen.

So that would be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, I know that the committee decides its own destiny, you are quite right. But we are rolling along nicely with the high speed train and the parliamentary secretary wants to add the issue of light rail. You know the Bloc Québécois' position on investment in rail. Since things are going well, let us try to stay on time so that we can get a high speed train.

I know that we are obliged to study bills, but still, we are on a roll. I hope that we are going to stick to the schedule that you presented, Mr. Chair. For the rest, the bills, the parliamentary secretary has set aside several days for that before the end of the session. I think that should be fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have two more people on the list. I'm going to limit it at that. I think we're going to go back to hearing our witnesses, and I'll set another ten minutes aside at the end of this meeting to discuss these outstanding issues. We do have a subcommittee that sets the direction of the committee. If the subcommittee members want me to call that committee, I would be happy to do that to discuss the future business of the committee.

Ms. Chow, do you have comments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll see that those comments are brought forward at the subcommittee meeting.

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleagues are quite right to feel that government bills generally should have priority. It is not an absolute rule, to my knowledge. However, there is a rule for private members' bills. If I am not mistaken, if a bill is has not been studied and a decision has not been rendered by a committee within 60 days of the bill being referred to it, this is deemed to have been done and the bill goes back to the House without amendment. I am not sure whether it is 60 business days or 60 sitting days. I would have to check. But, given the circumstances, your subcommittee should perhaps develop a strategy to deal with Bill C-310.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will advise the committee that it is 60 sitting days, which would take us to November 23.

I'm going to move to our guests, who have been waiting.

Thank you for your patience. I'm not sure if you have an order as to who would like to start. Is there one group that wants to take the lead?

George, go ahead.

[George Haynal, Vice-President, Government Affairs, Bombardier Inc., Bombardier]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee, for giving us the opportunity to share in your reflections on high-speed rail.

I'll make a few introductory comments and then look forward to the discussion that no doubt you will wish to have with all of us.

I'm joined here today by two expert colleagues: Paul Larouche, who is a leading member of our strategy group and who was personally involved in the link study we participated in, in 1995, as well as Dan Braund, who is a senior member of our systems group, with his office in Kingston, which has worldwide responsibility for systems planning and execution in the rail system.

My introduction will deal with four main topics. First, I will provide a brief overview of Bombardier Transport. Then, I will discuss exactly what a high speed train is. There are different definitions, depending on the situation. Third, I would like to talk about Bombardier's experience with high speed trains around the world. To conclude, I will say a few words about the potential for high speed rail in Canada.

I hope that doesn't take up too much time. I'll try to make it as quick and as pointed as I can.

I'm sure you're all familiar with Bombardier. Most Canadians know us because we are the world's third manufacturer of civil aircraft. What is less known is that Bombardier Transportation is in fact the leading producer of passenger rail solutions in the world, with something approaching 23% of global markets in this field. We have 100,000 vehicles in service today around the world. So we've been in this business for some time and have had considerable success in a very competitive environment, which I'm sure you will hear later on.

We have 50 production and engineering sites around the world, and 21 service centres in 24 countries. As I said, we are present around the world.

In Canada, we have two world-leading centres of excellence—one in La Pocatière, Quebec, and one in Thunder Bay, Ontario—as well as our systems group engineering centre in Kingston, Ontario. The head office of Bombardier Transportation North America, which runs our operations in Canada, the United States, and Mexico—we are present as producers in all three countries—is in Saint-Bruno, Quebec. We have vehicles, on which I don't doubt all of you will have travelled at one time or another, in operation in Vancouver, in the greater Toronto area, in Toronto itself, in Ottawa, and in Montreal. Many of the vehicles that VIA Rail operates were made by Bombardier in Canada.

So that's us, generically.

On the issue of what high-speed rail is, I'm sure that you have done extensive thinking about this. This is a subject that admits to a broad range of definitions. It covers a multitude of options in inter-city rail, ranging from systems that operate at about 150 miles per hour, such as the Acela system now connecting Washington, New York, and Boston, all the way through to the experimental Maglev technology that moves--I'll switch to kilometres, because the numbers are more impressive--at 400 kilometres per hour. This is an experimental technology, and it now presents the extreme range. But then there are ranges of everything in between.

The issue for policy-makers, if I may suggest, is not so much whether you have high-speed rail. It is the much more complicated and complex issue of what kind of high-speed is appropriate in a particular setting, and indeed whether high-speed is appropriate in particular settings. The choices are relative and political, and they boil down to whether a particular corridor's needs justify a certain level of investment in a certain type of rail service.

The technology exists today to meet virtually any high-speed requirement. Indeed, any one of the three companies represented at this table today could supply them all. The decisions about the choice are economic, social, environmental, and political, and the calculations are often relative, not absolute. For instance, rather than comparing the absolute maximum speeds of these modes, compare the time it takes to go from one city centre to another by different modes of transport and how a reduction of those times would attract ridership. Airplanes, after all, fly at about 600 kilometres per hour and upwards. So the comparison is a very difficult one to make when it just comes down to looking at maximum speeds of any form of transport.

I have one last generic word on the choice of transport. Obviously, the choices are relative and the costs can be daunting, but the fact is that not all systems cost the same. Different options have different prices. Much of the time the difference has very little to do with the vehicle being selected. The major costs involved in the various choices have to do with infrastructure, the choice of right of way, the need, or not, for new railbeds, and the cost of electrification, if required. I think that's an important consideration in everybody's decision on these issues. That decision is dictated, in turn, by an assessment of the proper balance between cost, speed, utility, and public benefit.

What is exciting, and certainly what we have all found, I'm sure, is the change that high-speed rail brings to communities and individuals. A good example is the intense integration of the countries and cities of the European Union high-speed rail has brought. For instance, it is common for Londoners to work in Paris, for Parisians to work in Brussels, and for people to commute to each other's cities, not just for daily work but for recreation. This is a notion that would have been unthinkable before the advent of high-speed rail.

The notion that people in Kingston or Ottawa could work in Toronto and Montreal and vice versa, that Red Deer residents could commute to Calgary or Edmonton, and that it would be commonplace for people to travel routinely across the Quebec City--Windsor and Edmonton--Calgary corridors for work, recreation, or social contact has extremely important social benefits that cannot easily be quantified.

One other issue that I think is important in considering high-speed rail, and undoubtedly it's one you have grappled with, is that this is a costly system, whatever one does. The investment can be less or more intense. There's no absolute cost calculation involved. What is not in doubt is that the investment has to be made by the public sector, just as it has to be with any other major infrastructure investment whose returns are not necessarily commercial but are spread across society and the economy.

The private sector brings much to the success of such an investment. Indeed, it is an indispensable partner. But ultimately, just as with roads, bridges, airports, and air corridors, the vital sinews of the modern economy are a public charge. That being the case, decision-makers will have to make careful calculations on the benefits of such an investment, because the issues involved address a vision of the country that goes beyond the immediate.

So the investments have to be put in the broader long-term context. They also involve issues of equity, and in particular, the calculation of whether public funds put toward this mode of transport or that prejudice another, and if so, whether that prejudice is justified by a considered policy preference--i.e., whether one mode of transport brings superior benefits over the short and long term over another in a particular setting.

This is truly a decision for those entrusted with political responsibility, not for industry or for advocates for any particular point of view. I know that in my own case I have some difficulty commenting on this, given that we make both trains and planes; in fact, we make the world's best regional aircraft. So it's a toughie when you ask one of us about the choices, but it's nice to be able to offer all the alternatives.

As I mentioned, all three companies represented here are leaders in this field, but perhaps I can offer a few words on what Bombardier itself has done. We have participated in virtually all high-speed rail projects in the last 20 years, often working in collaboration with other manufacturers, including those my colleagues here represent.

But we have our own highly successful range of installed technologies that range in speed from 200 kilometres to 300 kilometres an hour. We also have our next generation of Zefiro, a family of trains that represent the latest technological innovations. That is a system that offers speeds up to 360 kilometres an hour. We have trains in operation, including in China, where a 250-kilometre-an-hour system is now in place with the world's fastest sleeping trains involved.

There are two things peculiar about us and our approach to high-speed rail, which are worth noting for future reference. One is that we value the flexibility of application to different needs of customers above all; for instance, being able to provide different forms of propulsion that are interoperable, depending on the demand--diesel, electric--as the case may be.

But something that is even more important to us, and which we stress and in the Canadian context is particularly important, is the synergy between our aerospace and rail technologies. Bombardier aerospace technology has helped us to develop lighter materials, better welding techniques, more stable aerodynamics, more ergonomic designs and interiors, and more sophisticated controls for our high-speed systems. This is a uniquely important asset on which we will focus intensively. And as I said, in the Canadian setting--given that Bombardier Aerospace is so much a part of the Canadian technology scene--this will be an important asset.

Let me conclude with a brief observation, from our perspective, on the potential of high-speed rail in Canada. It's not an exaggeration to say that this country was forged by rail. And even if we have gone much beyond that in what now unites us, it still continues to play an important role in our national life, though a declining one. And perhaps this is the moment when that balance should change.

Passenger rail does provide a critical option for travel between our communities, and those include our great cities, particularly those that control major economic corridors. It's immune to the vagaries of our difficult climate, is secure in the face of threats, and is able to accommodate special needs. And it also connects the hearts of cities.

Not because this is not obvious, but public policy, frankly, has not privileged passenger rail to the measure it might have in the last decades. Investments in public infrastructure have been heavy in other areas compared to the investment in rail. This is not unique to our country. The United States, which is now entering a new phase of policy consideration in this area, has concluded the same thing. This is not a criticism. There are many difficult decisions involved.

But it is worth noting that we are in danger of falling behind. It's not just the countries of Europe that are investing in high-speed rail. I've mentioned China in this context. A number I still find difficult to believe is that by our calculations, China is spending $80 billion this year in high-speed rail. You didn't hear me wrong. That is the calculation of what they're spending.

But closer to home, of course, the United States is also taking a new look at high-speed rail, and the Obama administration is investing in the very first stages--$8 billion--in considering high-speed rail transport corridors, ten of them. That $8 billion will probably do the feasibility studies for those ten corridors, but it indicates the seriousness with which they regard this challenge.

I should note that among those corridors are three that connect Canadian cities to the United States. There's the corridor in the east, which is conceptualized as linking Montreal south; the corridor in the west that would link Vancouver to Seattle; and the corridor from Chicago to Detroit-Windsor that would link central Ontario to the north and south. So if for no other reason, it will be important for our country to consider whether to link our great cities in a similar fashion on a different axis.

Thank you. I very much appreciate your indulgence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Péloquin.

[Mario Péloquin, Director, Mobility Division, Siemens Canada Limited]

Good afternoon, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to discuss high speed rail in Canada.

I have been in the railway business since the 1980s. I worked at Canadian National, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, and, finally, at Siemens. I have been interested in rail transportation for a long time, most specifically, in high speed rail.

I have had the opportunity to provide input to various studies, participate in high-speed-rail symposiums, and offer advice on technology, ways of operating, and so on, to large groups of interested parties over several years. All of this has allowed me the privilege of keeping abreast of developments in the fascinating field of developing a high-speed network.

Several companies can speak about high-speed vehicles and the technology that each can develop. My general comment is that several companies can build high-speed trains of excellent quality, boasting a variety of esthetics and particular features, but I don't believe that is what this committee wants to hear about today. I won't try to compare our vehicles to those of other companies. They're all very good and run at very high speeds.

What I would like to state is that from experience, far too many people concentrate on the vehicle technology at the beginning of a high-speed discussion when evaluating the feasibility of such a system, instead of evaluating the basics first.

What is needed first, in fact, is a vision or strategy before determining which technologies are appropriate for the project. A technology that is too sophisticated, or not sophisticated enough, can adversely affect the achievement of results and the level of service. If the technology is too sophisticated for the system you want, you are going to spend much too much. If you choose the wrong technology and you want a system with better performance, you are going to have a lot of problems for the life of the project.

The vision must determine whether the goal is to serve the greatest number of urban centres or to carry the greatest number of people possible at a very high speed. Those two goals are not necessarily compatible.

Once the vision is firmed up, the evaluation of various aspects of the project can take place. For example, a decision on medium-speed travel may consider utilizing existing rights-of-way or corridors, as opposed to a truly high-speed system, which would most likely require dedicated rights-of-way with no road-crossing upgrades, for example.

Like the United States, there are some pretty stringent rules that all operating railways have to comply with in Canada under the regulatory regime of Transport Canada, which ensures rail safety for the people of Canada. So far, the maximum operating speed for railway grade crossings is 100 miles per hour. VIA Rail operates at that speed right now. There has been much discussion over several years, but no solution to this issue has been found over the last 20 years or so.

Mixing high-speed train travel at 250 kilometres an hour, let's say, with relatively slow freight trains--in Canada right now their speed is about 100 kilometres an hour--is very complicated. It gets worse as the speed goes up towards 300 to 350 kilometres an hour. The difference in speed, as you can imagine, is very simple. The difference in speed is so great that you need a lot of capacity on your rail network in order to have a high-speed train approaching a slow freight train and allow them to keep operating without delays.

Right now, the fastest subdivision in Canada is the so-called Kingston subdivision between Toronto and Montreal. There are small portions of that track that allow train travel at 100 miles or 160 kilometres an hour. That's the fastest in the country and the best track in the country. It simply would not be sufficient to operate a true high-speed system with the mix of freight trains, which is about 70 freight trains per day right now. There's just not enough capacity to operate one high-speed train on that network.

There are also several considerations to investigate whether we're looking at high-speed or medium-speed rail. For example, most high-speed trains cannot necessarily operate at full speed on the tracks built according to the standards that we have in Canada today. The best track classification in Canada, which includes the method of construction of the track as well as the maintenance frequencies and so on, and the leeway in what you can allow the tracks to do, would not be strict enough to allow a high-speed train to operate at full speed. We would have to define new standards for track construction and maintenance.

Similarly, the system of train control for the train movements would need to be adapted for faster train travel. We should also underline that a true high-speed train system would have to be an electric system, and the electrification of any network is fairly significant. We need to consider that.

The method of construction and maintenance of the track network, the signal system, and the train technology will be greatly affected by the climate in Canada. Be it the Calgary-Edmonton corridor or the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor, we have the privilege or the benefit of experiencing some of the coldest climates in the world for railway operations. In fact, in Canada, we operate the coldest light-rail systems in the world. We are the cold reference for the world.

The roadbeds on which the tracks rest, as well as the steel of the tracks themselves, are greatly affected by the 70-degree Celsius difference between summer weather and winter weather in Canada. Very few high-speed trains have been designed for a cold climate operation. The adaptation of these trains should not be underestimated. No one wants to be stuck on a disabled train in the middle of nowhere on a cold winter night. It's happened to me, as I come from the north, and it's not pleasant.

So there are several hard decisions to be made in order to execute a vision that would be as great a leap forward as the original construction of the first transcontinental railway in Canada, which effectively allowed our great nation to be formed. These decisions, similar to those made to build the Canadian Pacific in the late 1800s, would likely span more than one term in office for any politician. There is an absolute need to be bold and forward-looking in regard to the long-term objectives.

The economic impacts of designing, building, operating, and maintaining a high-speed rail network in Canada will be extraordinary for this country. There are very significant secondary benefits from shifting the paradigm of where people can live and commute from, including attracting and facilitating tourist travel, developing important new technological know-how, and improving the environmental benefits of travel over long distances. We've heard about our neighbours to the south, led by President Obama, announcing such visions and committing large amounts of money for the high-speed project in California.

I believe that Canada, as a pioneer in all matters of railroading ingenuity, can and should move forward with its high-speed rail program, and move from the study phase into the decision-making phase.

Thank you for your attention.

I'll take questions later on.