Transport Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 22 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Our orders of the day are in regard to committee business.

I think everyone has a copy of the subcommittee's report in front of them. Basically, I'm asking for approval from the committee. The only thing I'll highlight to the committee—and I don't think we have to change it—is that on page 1 of the report, the subcommittee agreed that we would bring people in from the government for today's meeting. It reflects February 16th: that was the subcommittee's recommendation. But because of scheduling conflicts, that person will be coming to our first meeting when we come back on the 28th, so it's just a correction in the date. Other than that, I would ask....

Does the report have to be moved? Okay.

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I recall that we wanted not just Natural Resources here, but also Industry, because there was some issue regarding intellectual property.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, and I think we're actually going to do that through the witnesses. The first gentleman we're going to bring in is going to give us a bigger picture.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Okay. That's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Do we have a mover to move the acceptance?

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.

All those in favour? Opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

The report has been accepted. We'll now move into committee business.

We have two notices of motion on file. The first notice of motion is from Mr. Sullivan. I will open the floor and ask Mr. Sullivan to move his motion, and then we'll have some dialogue.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You should all have a copy. I will read it out:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities call on the Government to develop a rail infrastructure investment program as part of its 2012-13 budget in order to ensure adequate investment in Canada's rail system so that it can be safely used to provide passenger service to the communities it serves (including the Victoria-Courtenay passenger line and the Montréal-Gaspé passenger line); and that the Committee report this motion to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion has been put.

I'll open the floor for discussion.

Mr. Sullivan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I imagine that the members of the committee probably are aware of this, but if they aren't, there are two substantial chunks of the passenger rail system in Canada, those being Victoria to Courtenay and along the Gaspé, that recently have been closed to passenger rail traffic, not because of a lack of demand or a lack of carriages or engines, but because the infrastructure itself, the rail line, has become unsafe. It's unsafe to run passenger cars and freight along it. We'll get to that in due course.

The principal purpose behind the motion is to suggest to the Conservative government that they place an allocation in the 2012-13 budget to repair this infrastructure in such a way that it can continue to be used for passenger rail traffic. The demand is there.

Mr. Garrison will speak further to the Victoria to Courtenay situation.

In the Gaspé situation, this line closed fairly suddenly, within the last three months. Unfortunately, Mr. Toone, who is the member for that region, cannot be here today. He's in the Magdalen Islands dealing with the natural disaster there.

The Gaspé region—I'll speak a little to this—has a significant number of bridges as well as other infrastructure.The line is actually not owned by the rail companies. It's owned by a local firm—the Société du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie, which is essentially a co-op of the communities in the area.

They have discovered that the infrastructure they've inherited needs a lot of work, which would cost far more money than local communities could ever raise on their own. Those communities are I think prepared to do routine maintenance on the infrastructure, but rather significant and rather large bills have come due, and nobody with deep pockets is sitting at the ready to do this. They have now turned to the federal government.

I'll ask my colleague from Quebec to speak further to that. Those are the two significant pieces of infrastructure that we are aware of. There are probably other pieces of infrastructure in the country. I'm aware that the government has set aside some funding to repair some infrastructure in southern Ontario. That's a federal government undertaking; it's not a local undertaking.

I'm also mindful of the fact that since Confederation it has always been a federal responsibility to put in rail infrastructure in the first place and to help keep it up. Sir John A. Macdonald was one of the first to do so, although we're not suggesting that you follow completely in his footsteps. I think he had a little trouble over some rail goings-on.

We are hopeful that the government, in this coming budget, will pay serious attention to what is a calamity in those regions as far as public transit is concerned, and in particular in rail infrastructure for passenger cars.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

In 1989, I left home and went west aboard a VIA Rail train. In the 1980s, passengers travelling by train came from diverse backgrounds, and service was reliable. Since then, the service has not been kept up to standard.

VIA has the duty to provide reliable services to all passengers who want to travel to the Gaspé. This is a federal company, and its mandate is to provide services to rural regions that are not well served by bus service or private transportation. On its website, we see that, according to its map, 50 roads are designated essential for rural communities and regions. If they want to cut a route, the company's plan has to be changed, or the Treasury Board Secretariat has to establish a change in route.

We want to confirm for people in the Gaspé that services will be accessible in the future. I think that this is an essential service for people living in that region, many of whom do not have the means to travel otherwise.

VIA Rail falls under federal jurisdiction, even if the railway owner is not the federal government, but rather the Société du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie, as my colleague mentioned. There is an agreement between the Quebec government and Transport Canada. VIA Rail assures us that this line will be operational in the future.

I simply want to say that I would like the government to reassure the people of the Gaspé that it will support and promote this service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Garrison, welcome.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back at the transport committee once again.

I want to talk today about what's locally known as the E&N railway. No one on Vancouver Island would recognize the pairing of Victoria and Courtenay as the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway, but it has been in existence for a very long time. It was part of the agreement for Confederation. British Columbia insisted on passenger service to Victoria as a condition of entering into Confederation with Canada.

I'm not going to dwell on that obligation at this point, and certainly Vancouver Island is not threatening to leave Canada, but it is an important part of the infrastructure of the island. Because of the geography, we have essentially one highway, which runs the length of the island. Just outside of Victoria it goes over what would qualify as a mountain pass here in Ottawa, and it's called the Malahat. There's really only one route up and down the island on a highway, other than the railway. When there's an accident on the highway—and unfortunately it's quite frequent because of the geography—the highway closes and there is no alternative route up and down the island.

In addition to providing passenger service, the E&N railway provides an important alternative to the single highway that exists on the island. It's owned by the Island Corridor Foundation, a partnership between municipalities and first nations. It was turned over to this non-profit community group in 2006. The reason that the first nations and municipalities were willing to take on the E&N was that they see it as an important tool for economic development.

The problem is that both Liberal and Conservative governments in the past have allowed the owners of the rail line to allow the basic railbed to deteriorate. The situation now is that ties need to be replaced in order to maintain safe service on that rail line. The cost of that is around $15 million. It's a very small investment for a very large benefit.

Part of the irony is that CP Rail was granted land to run the rail service and, peculiarly, when they gave it back and stopped running the service, they were compensated with a $236-million tax credit for donating what had been public land back to a public body. That was a very large benefit to that private corporation. At the same time, nothing was given to the Island Corridor Foundation in terms of capital investment or funds to make repairs and to continue running the line safely.

On May 10, the last train left Victoria for Nanaimo and the service was shut down. At the time, an alternative bus service was to be provided until August, but then the minister, for his own reasons, shut down the alternative bus service, saying that the private sector and the highway provided adequate alternatives. Since August we've had no service whatsoever being provided by the public entity.

In June of 2011, the Province of British Columbia came up with a promise for half of the funding necessary to restore the rail line. It is a $7.5-million contribution from the province, contingent on the federal government providing the other $7.5 million. What people on the island are looking for now is a commitment from the federal government to match the provincial funding. It's actually quite a good deal—50-cent dollars here—to get that work on the railbed moving.

In addition to the possibility of restoring the passenger service, in the long run the line has potential for commuter service in the Victoria area. It has a very large potential for freight service, in particular for the transportation of hazardous goods on the rail line rather than on the highway over the Malahat. One of the problems we had certainly last year was that we had a gasoline tanker go off the Malahat into the Goldstream River, destroying a large part of the salmon run. If you repair that railbed, you have this other potential in addition to the passenger service.

One of the most interesting things to me is that because the Island Corridor Foundation is a partnership between first nations and municipalities, there are agreements in place so that when this work begins a large part of it will go to first nations. It will go to a group on Vancouver Island that has a very high unemployment rate and a very high need for some employment programs locally to help lift first nations people and communities out of poverty. So there are a lot of other very good things that could happen as a result of funding the E&N railway.

I'm very pleased that my colleague has brought forward this motion to the committee. I hope we can count on the support of members of the committee in urging the government to make what, in federal budget terms, is a very small investment that has a very large impact on Vancouver Island in terms of local economic development and tourism.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I am not certain that I have properly understood what my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges is saying. It should be noted that the problem does not reside with VIA Rail. On December 22, VIA Rail decided to suspend services on the line to the Gaspé because there were safety issues. In 2007, the Quebec government and the federal government reached an agreement with the people in the Gaspé to create that company. It is now an independent organization in the Gaspé. The problem is as follows: $100 million is needed over the next five years. So, $20 million needs to be invested per year over five years to ensure that the railway is safe. In fact, there is a clear problem of sustainability.

Personally, I am in favour of supporting the people of the Gaspé; however, I wonder if it is really necessary to establish a separate program, specifically to resolve these two issues, meaning the one in Vancouver and the one in the Gaspé. Instead, I think we should ask the minister to verify whether existing programs could temporarily respond to this infrastructure problem. Of course, the economic situation must be taken into account. The budget will probably hurt in March. I support this motion, but I would ask the government to not wait for programs to be created and to avoid speaking in strictly technocratic language.

We should invite the minister, who is also responsible for Economic Development Canada for the regions of Quebec, to play a specific role with regard to the Gaspé. As for the issue in western Canada, a minister is obviously responsible for this file, but with regard to the Gaspé, it is not by attacking VIA Rail that the problem will be resolved. The minister needs to be advised that there is a safety issue, that the people in the Gaspé are not second-class citizens and that with regard to their industrial development, they also deserve infrastructure. We should ask him to verify whether it's possible to utilize existing programs. In fact, creating a new program would take time and would have to go through Treasury Board. Furthermore, this is a time of pre-budget consultations, and the budget will be tabled on March 13. This would make no sense.

This is, however, an urgent need. Even recently we have been able to see the kind of situation that can occur when things get mixed up. Our colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine is now in the Magdalen Islands. We are thinking of these people and we are happy to see how Minister Dutil and Premier Charest reacted.

With regard to the railway, since this is a public hearing, I think that we should ask Minister Lebel to review this situation, even if the Conservatives will vote against the motion. We are talking about people's safety, and if nothing is done, the railway will have to be closed. With regard to industrial development, without basic infrastructure and income, quality of life will deteriorate. The Quebec government has already invested in health care, but we also want to ensure that these people can travel and have access to this mode of transportation. I will be voting in favour of the motion, but no matter what the government decides, I would ask Minister Lebel to review this issue in the Gaspé. As Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, he may feel that the problem affecting Vancouver could be handled by the minister responsible for Western Economic Diversification.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Morin.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It was not my impression that my colleague for Vaudreuil-Soulanges attacked a crown corporation. Ultimately, we are asking for $100 million over five years for the provision of an essential service to the people of the Gaspé. At present, VIA Rail Canada is using a bus to meet the need. However, we know that buses aren't as comfortable as trains, and the trip takes approximately an hour longer than it would by train, based on our information. Taking the bus is not as attractive to consumers.

Right now, all we hear about is job creation. We saw this with all the witnesses we heard from when we were studying the national public transit strategy. To repair the railway, jobs need to be created. These are all jobs tied to the construction of railcars. We know that all public transit vehicles are built in Canada and that all cars are built in Asia.

This is extremely logical to me. If we talk about job creation in Canada, we must encourage sectors where there is a Canadian industry. This is a measure that our government should use, both to help with the provision of services in the Gaspé and services in my friend's riding, as well as to encourage Canadian industry working to provide public transit.

I want to repeat what my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges said. There should be a mandatory provision of approximately 50 routes for designated communities. The Matapédia-Gaspé line is part of the mandatory routes. So we must help VIA Rail in this regard. Giving it $19 million per year is not a lot for a government, if this helps create jobs, helps people to travel and reduces vehicle emissions. In fact, many people decide to take their cars instead of the bus because it is further.

I support my colleague's motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't attacking VIA. I was simply pointing out that in their corporate plan, as my colleague said, they had 50 identified routes that are essential to rural communities. If one or two of those routes get taken out, the plan has to be revisited. The Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada is involved, and there has to be a consensus on route changes.

In the Gaspé, the train is essential to the economy, and something needs to be done, whether it be by Transport Canada, VIA, or whatever agency responsible. There has to be action on this so that the train service is restored. Local mayors and residents of the area are concerned. There are also worries that the service won't resume within the time that it has been said it will resume.

As I said, it's essential to the economy there. The train has been there for over 100 years. I just wanted to clarify that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

One thing I don't see in the motion is a source of funding. As far as I'm concerned, in a period where we have a deficit and where we look around the world and see the consequences of deficits, we need every single funding proposal to have a funding source. This does not have one, so I can't support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Seeing no other—

Mr. Sullivan?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm aware that there are government commitments to fund rail infrastructure improvements in southern Ontario. The funding source, in those cases, is general revenue.

I would assume that the Conservatives are not trying to play favourites in terms of who gets what funding. These are the most pressing, I guess, because these are passenger rail services and freight rail services that have now collapsed as a result of rail infrastructure. The government has promised I think $175 million for one particular rail infrastructure upgrade in southern Ontario: the Peterborough-Toronto railroad. My understanding is that the source of that funding is general revenue. There is a commitment from the government. I think it's contingent on matching funds from the province, but there is a commitment.

Nobody has suggested that somebody has to tax somebody to do it. It's part of the government's overall obligation, as the provider, in some circumstances, of public transit infrastructure, to come up with that money. There is also rail infrastructure money assigned to upgrade the service between Toronto and London, Ontario; CN has been given money by the federal government to upgrade that infrastructure. There was some concern expressed by the Ministry of Transport recently that the infrastructure money had not been spent and that CN was dragging its feet. My understanding is that they are now starting to spend the money.

It is a strange comment, I guess, that there isn't a source of revenue. There is a source of revenue: it's the general revenue of the government. Also, it's the general nature of this government to protect investments in rail infrastructure generally.

There will be, I understand, needs for other rail infrastructure improvements or maintenance, such as for the handling of wheat in western Canada. There is serious concern that some of those short lines have exactly this kind of problem. This hasn't come to the surface yet because transportation doesn't happen until later in the summer. But there is some serious concern that some of the short lines, which are community owned—they are not owned by the big rail companies—will collapse, and it will be discovered that without a Wheat Board, the transportation of wheat can't be done, because these short lines will fail.

There doesn't appear to be a government paying attention to this network of rail infrastructure in Canada, which in some cases has been inherited by local community groups. They have been trying to keep it running, to maintain it, but they don't have the deep pockets the federal government has.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we're asking the government to raise taxes somewhere or to somehow impose some kind of penalty on the communities where this occurs. What I'm suggesting is that the government look at all of its priorities as it determines how it will spend money. One of its priorities needs to be the maintenance of infrastructure in Canada.

Canada was built on rail infrastructure. Canada was built on the ability to move goods and passengers from place to place. For at least 150 years, the federal government has traditionally had a role in helping to maintain that infrastructure. If the government is now abandoning that role, then the folks in Peterborough would like to know. The folks in London would like to know. The folks in Cornwall would like to know. The folks in Kitchener would like to know.

But we're not suggesting that there be something new and different happening. It is a normal course of action on the part of the Government of Canada to help maintain critical infrastructure. If there needs to be some kind of.... We understand that there is, at least in the Victoria instance, an offer of help from the provincial government, and there is clearly an undertaking by the group in the Gaspésie to keep up this rail once it is finally put into good working order.

We're not talking about an ongoing investment over years and years. We're talking about one-time money. We think the government needs to look at all of its priorities and make determinations about whether or not infrastructure in Canada is a priority it can sign on to and, in particular, to determine that these two rail corridors be looked at in the designing of the next federal budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Coderre, you have the floor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I want to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, a question.

I don't want to get into a semantic debate about the program, but there is a real security issue. I would like to know, first, if he is aware of the safety issue along this section of the railway. That reality needs to be taken into consideration. I also want him to tell me whether the minister would be prepared to review the issue, despite the fact that the motion does not mention funding sources. There is, nonetheless, a political reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Poilievre.