Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Thank you to the committee for your indulgence. I do have a family commitment that I could not get out of.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is a great pleasure to be here today.
I am speaking to you today on behalf of Canada's airports. The Canadian Airports Council has 45 members that handle 75% of passenger traffic in Canada and virtually all of the air cargo arriving in Canada.
The potential introduction of high-speed rail in Canada has been an ongoing subject of discussion for many years. Its proponents point to systems in Europe and Japan as models and urge significant public investment and government intervention in our transportation system as a sort of environmental nirvana for Canada sometimes. Canada’s airports have some concerns with the direction of the debate.
Canada’s airports believe there may be a place for high-speed rail in Canada. However, it will be difficult for us to support an approach to high-speed rail if it is pursued in a manner that disregards the importance of our aviation sector or severely risks our sector’s prosperity. Like members of this committee, we eagerly await the outcome of Transport Canada’s study due out early 2010. We hope it provides some answers to the many questions we all have.
Canada has a sparse population largely strung along the vast Canada-U.S. border. On a per capita basis, our economy is highly reliant upon international trade and foreign tourism. As a nation, accordingly, we are highly dependent on aviation. I cannot make this point more strongly. Without aviation, Canada would have trouble functioning as a prosperous nation.
Much of the discussions of high-speed rail suggest a heavy public sector investment is necessary. This includes public-private partnerships. An injection of funds into rail would come in a fiscal environment for aviation in Canada that already is heavily criticized around the world for burdening our sector with high taxes.
For airports, the most notable of these is the $300 million in airport rent our members pay each year. At the same time, airports are responsible for their own infrastructure improvements and have invested more than $9.5 billion in airport infrastructure since 1992.
These are investments paid for not by the taxpayer, but rather through airport improvement fees paid directly by users. If public investment into high-speed rail is inevitable, perhaps the government could make a step toward the elimination of airport rent, the air travellers' security charge, and other aviation fees.
Without structural change to the aviation sector, a public investment in high-speed rail would be a double whammy for our industry, upon which more than 200,000 Canadian jobs rely. With airports already on the hook for infrastructure improvements and burdened by rent and other taxes, having to compete with an improved, subsidized high-speed passenger rail service clearly would be a disadvantage for Canada’s aviation sector and its workers.
Airports and airlines are in competition with rail. We acknowledge that. Further subsidies by the federal or provincial governments to support expansion of high-speed rail services would serve to further an unlevel playing field in favour of the railway operators and at the expense of Canadian airlines and airports that pay their own way.
That said, we also believe it is important to point out the highly integrated nature of air travel. The introduction of high-speed rail has the potential to greatly impact Canada’s complex airline networks. For example, on any given short-haul flight into a hub airport like Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver, only a portion of those passengers are local. A significant number will be travelling on to a second or even third point in Canada and perhaps beyond.
The integration of transportation modes and the connectivity between modes needs further examination. The viability of the Canadian airline network depends on travellers being able to conveniently and seamlessly connect through a Canadian airport on to their final destination. Connecting traffic can make or break a decision on whether an air carrier will operate a particular route or even serve a community.
Europe understands this to an extent. Its rail and aviation networks are highly integrated. If Canada gets this wrong, we risk losing our passengers altogether. We cannot forget that an Ottawa-Tokyo passenger can just as easily choose to fly over Detroit or Seattle as he or she can choose a Canadian gateway.
In addition, the challenge going forward is that the government is being placed in a position of picking winners and losers. For example, high-speed rail developments in the Alberta context are geared towards collapsing regions and economies, so governments will also be picking winner and loser communities or regions. High-speed rail service that serves only the Calgary airport but does not make stops at other major airports in Alberta would essentially siphon off and consolidate air traffic into a single airport from other airports in the province.
Much has been made about the environment as the raison d'être for high-speed rail in Canada. However, high-speed rail is not necessarily an environmental answer all the time. At the distances needed to travel most of Canada, rail could be less environmentally responsible than aviation. Even in short-distance corridors in which rail may represent an environmental improvement, diverting air passengers to trains would have little overall impact on the environment. Aviation represents just 3% of emissions worldwide.
As I prepare to conclude, let's consider some numbers. Canada's airports handle about 100 million passengers a year without government subsidy, supporting about 200,000 jobs nationwide. As you explore the introduction of high-speed rail in Canada, we ask that you consider these numbers. Around the world there are numerous examples of high-speed rail that is properly integrated into a nation's transportation system as part of a carefully considered national transportation strategy. Passenger rail can be a valuable part of the transportation chain, but success is only ensured if rail is expanded in a fair and equitable manner. If it is introduced at great public expense while aviation continues to suffer a tax squeeze, if it is introduced without regard to its impact on aviation, or if it is introduced as a parallel system of transportation not integrated with aviation, the introduction of high-speed rail would not be right for this country.
The Canadian Airports Council members are not opposed to the work this committee is doing on high-speed rail. It should be explored, but it should be considered as part of a long-overdue national transportation strategy that considers the entirety of our national transportation system.
We look forward to participating in this debate in the future.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity.