Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, M. Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable Ministers.

Earlier, you mentioned maritime, highway and airport infrastructures. However, there is a type of infrastructure that you did not mention: railways and high-speed trains. Last weekend, I watched a television program on a national network. They were saying that in China, there is a high-speed train that runs at 486 kilometres an hour.

What is our future concerning high-speed trains according to the Canadian government? the country is big, and the cost of transportation—by air or by other means—is very high. How come we do not have a plan to cover this? If I remember correctly, and if I know the history of Canada, it is nonetheless that which allowed Canada to develop from sea to sea. How come we do not have a plan for a high-speed train and other things like that?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Maybe I'll just answer. I know Rob wants to get into it as well.

I was on one of those trains that goes from downtown Shanghai out to the airport. It went 420 kilometres an hour. I'll tell you, that pins your ears back. It's an impressive train--or plane. I'm glad they didn't put wings on it, because the thing would have taken off.

In the last proposal that was put together in the 1990s to have a high-speed train in the Montreal to Windsor corridor, the estimated cost at that time was $18 billion. We're working with the Province of Quebec right now to update that report to see where we're at today.

My fear is that the costs in a populated area are astronomically high. I don't know what to do about that. It's different in China. When they want a piece of land, they don't have to negotiate with the private landowner to get it, so their costs are different from ours.

The reality is that the one place in Canada where it makes the most sense is in the Montreal to Windsor corridor, and in that corridor just the land costs alone are astronomical.

We're working on it with the Quebec government and hope to have the feasibility study soon. That will include some updated numbers from the study from the 1990s, but you can be sure that the numbers will be awfully high. Whether it's affordable or not, we'll find out when the report comes in.

Rob.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I know that the report on high-speed rail is yet to come in, and we'll see. But what is definite is higher-speed rail. We committed $407 million in the last budget to major infrastructure. That's a little over $1 billion in the last number of years for VIA or passenger rail.

A good part of the money is actually being spent in the corridor between Windsor and Quebec City, but particularly between Toronto and Montreal. The goal is to reduce by half an hour passenger train time from Toronto to Montreal.

This is actually very good news. The project is moving along aggressively. There is a little bit of time yet to get it done. There are some holdups because of exactly what we were just talking about--land acquisition, and so on.

It is proceeding, and not only is it going to be a faster speed, but we have a tremendous amount of investment, as part of those dollars, in refurbishing the actual trains, not only the engines but the cars themselves. So you'll be riding in not only a faster train--I don't know if it will pin your ears back--but one that will certainly be much more comfortable because of the refurbishing of the entire fleet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree with you, however, in 1995, it would have cost 18 billion dollars. This would cost even more if we waited for the year 2035. Perhaps it might be time for us to sit down and decide to launch the project and get it over with.

We invested money—I cannot say that it was invested haphazardly, because this money helped the economic recovery. Take for instance the automobile industry where we invested $10 billion. These $10 billion will yield large returns. It is the same thing as with the train. If we calculate the benefits for the environment we can see that as far as we are concerned, it would be viable in the long term. Of course, it would be expensive at the outset, but in the long run, I think that it would be very profitable for Quebec and for all of Canada. If we do not do this, there will be more trucks on the roads and more airplanes. Someday, we will be forced to make this change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci, Monsieur Gaudet.

Mr. Watson, the last three minutes are yours.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a timely discussion on high-speed rail. It's interesting. What we do know, Ministers, is that we have heard expert testimony at our own committee that the construction of a high-speed rail line from Windsor to Quebec City will range anywhere from $43 billion to $50 billion, and there isn't a single high-speed rail line anywhere in the world that's profitable on an operational basis. We'll let you work through that testimony down the road at some point.

I appreciate the statement around DRIC and the continued importance of that project. I know that some will have speculated that because a lame-duck session didn't actually tackle the legislation, somehow this project will not come to fruition or is dead, as I think one particular person mentioned. I suspect that in the new year, as the new administration in Michigan is sworn in and there are new members, there will be renewed efforts. I presume that means you and your officials will be prepared to appear or testify, if necessary, to answer any questions, particularly for the newer legislators who will be coming in. I see heads nodding.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Absolutely. In fact, I've had a couple of conversations with Governor-elect Snyder. He seems to be very keen on the project. I believe he is going to make it a priority in the spring session, and that's good news.

This is the project where all the approvals are in place. People shouldn't lose sight of that. People will throw other things up in the air and say, “What about this, and what about that?” We know for sure that the one project that is fully approved to go ahead is this one. This one is ready to go.

In my time in this ministry I've been impressed by the enthusiastic support from the American federal government--Secretary LaHood and Secretary Napolitano. Governor-elect Snyder seems to be very keen on it. He's quite sure that this project is good for Michigan and good for Canada-U.S. trade.

In this lame-duck session it was always a long shot, and we knew that. It's housekeeping; it's a big bill and they want to do it right, as they should. We've offered a briefing on what Canada is going to commit to it. We will not only pay for all of the infrastructure on our side of the border, but we'll also give $550 million to Michigan to save them harmless on their side. Secretary LaHood has told me it will become one of their number one priorities once the Michigan legislature deals with it and passes it. He obviously can't do anything until they approve it, but he's keen on it.

It's a great project for all the reasons we know. Passenger traffic on that bridge is destined to double and truck traffic is destined to triple in the next 20 to 25 years. To not have another bridge is a fool's game. I think the Michigan legislature knows that as well. We just have to find the right formula to get that done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I thank our guests for being here today.

A notice for the members is that tomorrow our regular meeting will start at 11 a.m. and run until 1 p.m. Then we will have a two-hour meeting from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m., so keep your calendars clear.

Thank you, Ministers and officials.

Merci beaucoup.

The meeting is adjourned.