Transport Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Jason Wolf]

There is a subsidy from the governments in Europe and Israel. That's why I am talking about the difference in policies. In the U.S., you have a $7,500 battery subsidy. In Ontario, there's a limited $8,000 battery subsidy. In Israel and Denmark, there is not a battery subsidy, but there is a difference in the taxation on gasoline cars versus electric cars. There isn't a specific rebate or tax credit like there is in North America, but there is a taxation difference based on the carbon intensity of the vehicle. It's not specific to our type of car or any other type of car. It's just a lower percentage of tax on the vehicles that are zero-emissions.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

To be clear—and I apologize to our other guests, because I'm trying to understand this here—you are saying that the cost of a vehicle in Israel from Renault, and let's say the dollar exchange is comparable, is the same price as a car here in Ontario, and the only difference is the battery price? Is that what you are saying? Or would the battery price be included and make it comparable in price?

[Jason Wolf]

If the battery price is included, it's $10,000 to $12,000 more than the same car without a battery. But because Better Place owns the batteries part of the network, it can break it down into 100,000 miles, and basically charge you 6¢ to 7¢ per mile for the use of the battery, 3¢ for the electricity, and 3¢ for our operating the network and giving you the customer service. That brings it to 12¢ a mile, which is cost equivalent or cheaper than a $3.50 gallon or a $1 litre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you very much. Your time has expired, Mr. Holder.

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for joining us. My only regret this morning is that there are so many of you and I only have five minutes.

My first observation has to do with the fact that Canada has fallen behind in the development of passenger transit, in particular. I am not going to ask you to comment on that, but I have come to the conclusion that strong political leadership could be a considerable change. In addition, it seems that we have all the resources we need.

When I was in my third year of high school, at the age of 14 or 15, my geography teacher talked about the possibility of a high-speed train between Quebec City and Windsor. As a teacher, 15 years later, I also talked about it. Now that I am an MP, 25 or 35 years later, there is still no high-speed train allowing me to travel between Trois-Rivières and Ottawa. It is not expected in the short term and it might not even happen during my career.

Can we soon foresee a high-speed train technology that would enable us to use the existing rights-of-way in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, without having to spend huge amounts of money? So without spending the amounts required for high-speed rail technology, for instance, can we still have an effective and profitable technology?

[Paul Larouche]

I don’t remember if I had the time to get to the part about incremental speed technology. Yes, we now have the technology that uses existing infrastructures, but we have to limit the speed to 200 km/h, which is not insignificant. With those speeds and with a well-coordinated system where passenger trains have priority and service would be frequent, I feel that we could see a system in that corridor. We could set it up very quickly and it would give us something to be proud of.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The cruising speed of a train would be 200 km/h. For the Trois-Rivières-Montreal route, which is quite frequent, it would mean that it could be done in half an hour or 40 minutes. What distance does the train have to travel before it reaches its full cruising speed and before it has to slow down for the next stop? In other words, how many stops can we have in that corridor and still be able to talk about a high-speed train?

[Paul Larouche]

You have hit the nail on the head. The more stops there are, the more time the train needs to slow down and accelerate, and the longer the trip will take. We have to minimize the number of stops if we want to minimize travel time.

When Bombardier and its partners prepared the proposal for a high-speed train from Quebec City, the train was to stop at L’Ancienne-Lorette to pick up commuter passengers. Then it stopped at Trois-Rivières and, finally, it stopped outside Montreal. It didn’t stop more frequently in order to minimize travel time.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

I would just like to add two short comments.

Bombardier has the technology for high-speed trains. China has a project where trains will reach up to 360 km/h. Italy has a similar project where trains will reach that same speed. In Canada, as my colleague said, there is room to optimize the existing infrastructure and increase the speed, but without reaching 350 km/h, because that would require a separate network. To my colleague’s comments, I would add that we have to think about the signalling and electrification systems to improve the existing network.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Couture, in just under a minute…

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have 30 seconds.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

… could you tell us where we are at with the wheel motor? Mr. Couture had set it up, then he disappeared to the benefit of a 3M company, which, in turn, also disappeared. The wheel motor came back, but without any concrete application. Where is that system at?

[Etienne Couture]

Yes, Pierre Couture, the researcher who developed the model—and we are not related—now works for TM4. It is still the property of Hydro-Québec, TM4 being a subsidiary. Work is still being done to develop new applications. Meanwhile, the wheel motor with the monorail that I mentioned today is still an option.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

How much time do we need to develop that project, which, if I am not mistaken, is more of an idea than a project? Who provides the funds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Aubin, your time is up.

Mr. Watson, for five minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish I had longer than five minutes because I have a lot of questions. It will be hard to pursue a line of questioning here. I'll do the best I can. I'll try to be succinct, and I hope we can all do the same.

I have just a comment first. I'm going to focus on research and development and whether we have the right model in Canada.

We are reaching the end of a study now, and this panel, similar to previous panels, talks about government mandates, government-funded demonstrations of technology, government procurement. I think some of these issues strike to the larger issue, which is the size of our country and the adoption of technology, the economies of scale, if you will, for commercialization and the uptake of technology among consumers. There is a gap between the consumer's aspiration and the consumer's ability to pay, and somewhere in there I think we're asking government to step in and fill the gap.

I want to talk about research and development and the model we have. Let me first just ask a question, because I want to talk with Bombardier.

You probably engage in a lot of research and development. Just to give me a sense of where you are at on the R and D scale, what are your most recent Canadian revenue figures, and how much of that do you invest in research and development?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

Well, I mentioned a figure that we can release. It's the $2.7 billion investment in our Canadian operations in the last five years. But I'm not counting this year, 2012; I'm counting from 2007 to 2011, so—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's how much you spend on R and D?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

That includes R and D, but that also includes investment in tangible and intangible assets in Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm just trying to get a sense of a percentage of how much you are investing in research and development relative to what you.... Is that 2%, 10%?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

There is something I can share with you. In the last three years, just on R and D, $1.6 billion of investment has been made, but that's not only in Canada, that's across the board for Bombardier, rail and aerospace combined. That's the extent to which I can share the figures.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just in a general sense, were you investing a lot in in-house capability, or do you use a lot of university-based research?

Let me come at this in a different way. What government programs do you use for research and development? Have you used IRAP? Have you used...? Can you give me a sense of what you've accessed in terms of your public capability versus your private capability?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

We do both. We have partnerships in place with a number of universities here in Canada, if you talk about—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

What's the ratio of your private versus public?