Transport Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 104 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, the committee is meeting to study high frequency rail projects.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Although this room is equipped with a sophisticated audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and cause serious injury. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece that is worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite all participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged, and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

Colleagues, before we begin today and I introduce you all to our witnesses, I would just like to take a moment to once again put forward the budget that was tentatively approved at our previous meeting. I'd like to put that forward for consideration. All of you have received a copy.

I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to adopt the revised budget.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Do you mean the changes to the budget?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's the changes to the budget, yes.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Seeing no objection, it is so adopted.

Yes, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, could I just express my appreciation to the clerk for making the timely change, as requested? It's much appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I second that.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

[An hon. member]

We look forward to the barbeque in your backyard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, appearing before us in the first hour, we have Professor Pierre-Olivier Pineau, chair in energy sector management, HEC Montréal, by video conference.

From Amtrak, we have Robert Eaton, senior director, government affairs.

Welcome, and thank you for being here, sir.

From the City of Drummondville, we welcome Mayor Stéphanie Lacoste and Thomas Roux, director of the mayor's office.

Welcome to you both.

Mr. Pineau, you now have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Professor, Chair in Energy Sector Management, HEC Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me. I'm honoured to appear before you today.

I'm a huge fan of rail and an expert on energy policy. I'm not an expert on trains. That said, I'm interested in energy consumption and Canada's energy policies. Unfortunately, I find that the use of oil products in the transportation sector is enormous, and it is not declining over the years, partly because Canadians don't have enough alternatives to using their cars.

Trains are essential. Canada was built on the strength of rail. We think of rail as part of our glorious, proud past, but, in fact, trains must become the backbone of transportation for Canada's future. Trains will enable us to live in Canada and all its regions in an environmentally friendly way, by helping us reduce our use of energy, and economically, because trains costs less.

I personally don't own a car, but let's suppose I had driven to Ottawa to appear in committee. I could have been reimbursed for the number of kilometres travelled, based on car expense rates of 70¢ per kilometre. With 200 kilometres between Montreal and Ottawa, the round trip would have cost my employer $280. The round trip by train would have cost only $120. This shows just how expensive the car is compared to the train. Of course, rail pays for its tracks, but when people use a car, the $280 I mentioned doesn't include the cost of road maintenance. The construction of the road was paid for with funds other than the money individuals have to shell out when they take their car.

Obviously, if I had flown, the trip would have cost even more. We also have to think about the environment: Greenhouse gas emissions are much higher when we travel by plane or car and lower when we use the train. Canada has set priorities for reducing GHG emissions. Travelling by rail combines cutting costs with reducing emissions and increasing productivity. It goes without saying that if I had travelled to Ottawa by car, I would have had to drive. I would have lost four hours of my life, or two hours each way. By taking the train, I could have worked, slept or enjoyed some leisure time. Of course, the same applies if people go to Toronto via this high-frequency rail corridor or travel between Calgary and Edmonton. Instead of wasting time in a car and not being productive, Canadians will be able to be productive, enjoy leisure activities or rest on the train. It's an essential factor for enhancing quality of life, as well as saving us money and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The last point I would like to mention is that trains can be electrified much more easily than planes or cars. In the medium term, when we are able to electrify modes of transportation, it will be infinitely easier to electrify trains than cars or planes. This will not only save Canadian society money, but also make life easier and promote well-being and a better environment. I'm happy with the idea of having a high-frequency train, but I'm dismayed that we're still having this discussion in 2024. We should have had high-frequency rail many years ago, but, of course, it's never too late to do the right thing. I hope to see high-frequency rail soon, and I give this project my full support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pineau.

Before giving the floor to other witnesses for their opening remarks, I need to seek the unanimous consent of the committee.

The vote has been called. May we continue?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I have unanimous consent. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Mayor, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Stéphanie Lacoste, Mayor, City of Drummondville]

Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, thank you for allowing me to address you today.

I'm here to give Drummondville a voice on the high frequency rail, or HFR, project, which is to be introduced in Quebec and Canada.

I'll start by saying a few words about Drummondville. Drummondville is the 14th-largest city in Quebec and the primary city in the Centre-du-Québec administrative region. It is located halfway between Montreal and Quebec City, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. Over the past decade, its population has increased significantly year over year, and the city has experienced ongoing development. Drummondville is recognized for its vitality and its role as an economic driver, and the local community continues to build on this momentum.

One of the many advantages that make Drummondville so successful is its strategic geographic location. The city is at the crossroads of major highways, right in the heart of the most densely populated area of Quebec. In fact, 75% of Quebec's population is within a 90-minute drive of our city. With more people travelling between Drummondville and major urban centres, mobility issues are inevitable. In the context of the project before us today, Drummondville needs to be a well-positioned player. We think Drummondville is the ideal location to serve as a transportation hub for 21st-century solutions to intercity transportation. In fact our city, really, our entire community, has been a long-time proponent of the HFR project, which was first spearheaded by Via Rail. However—and this is very important to note—the City’s support for this project has always been and continues to be conditional on maintaining, improving and enhancing services on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, in a context where Drummondville facilities would serve as an important stop, or hub, between Montreal and Quebec City, just like Kingston is between Toronto and Montreal.

One of your witnesses, Pierre Barrieau, pointed out it was important not to abandon south shore passengers. The relevance of this hub is therefore based on a concrete, proven logic. The people of Drummondville, and many others who live in the southern shores of the St. Lawrence, would then be linked to Ontario and Toronto, connecting to Montreal through the HFR. However, implementing HFR service should not involve cutting service to areas that currently have it. Providing a high level of service will contribute to the cultural and modal shifts needed to ensure the successful implementation of HFR and the resulting improvement of services on the south shore. The cities of Drummondville and Trois-Rivières immediately understood the benefits of this project and agreed to support it with one voice. Instead of pitting the north shore and the south shore against each other, we chose to promote collaboration between the north and south shores. Via Rail was also quick to support the position that a north shore route using dedicated train tracks would not replace existing rail service in regions on the south shore, including Drummondville, where dozens of people take the train every day to go to Quebec City or Montreal.

In August 2016, the CEO of Via Rail confirmed that the development of HFR would involve repositioning the passenger transportation strategy on the south shore of the St. Lawrence by creating a hub in Drummondville for intercity transportation. Around that time, Via Rail also announced that trains between Montreal and Quebec City would become more frequent, increasing gradually to eight trains in each direction over a period of two to three years. This commitment has not yet been met.

In addition to the issue of train frequency, we are dealing with issues related to train service times and reliability. When it comes to the current situation, there is no definitive answer. Many delays are due to the fact that passenger trains and freight trains share the same train tracks, with priority given to freight, since the tracks are owned by CN. The result is long waits on sidings that end up discouraging people from taking the train. All of these issues limit passenger growth.

In closing, we would like to reiterate the City of Drummondville’s firm commitment and collaboration on this file. This is a priority issue for elected officials in Drummondville, for the city's municipal government, and, above all, for the entire population of our region.

I will be pleased to answer your questions, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mayor.

Next we have Mr. Eaton.

Mr. Eaton, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, sir.

[Robert Eaton, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Amtrak]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It is great to be here.

Amtrak was created by the U.S. Congress in 1970. The company is operated and managed as a private corporation, with the federal government owning a controlling interest. By law, our mission is to “provide...efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility, consisting of...high-quality service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel options.”

In fiscal year 2023, we served more than 40 routes, operating almost 300 trains a day, and the Amtrak workforce delivered 29 million passengers to 524 stations in the U.S. and Canada. We expect our fiscal year 2024 ridership to match or exceed our prepandemic levels of 32.5 million passengers, and by 2040, we hope to be serving 66 million customers a year. Those are 66 million trips that won’t strain already congested highways and airlines. It means travel time for those passengers will be usable and productive.

Our intercity service takes three forms.

The northeast corridor service line provides fast, frequent service at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour along a mostly Amtrak-owned line. We share it with commuter and freight trains between Boston and Washington, D.C. While ticket revenues significantly exceed operating costs, the federal government and state governments fund most of the capital projects along that service.

The long-distance line provides daily and, in two cases, three times a week service along routes that are at least 750 miles in length. It depends on annual federal appropriations for operation.

The third type of service is the state-supported service line, which provides service along shorter corridor routes outside of the northeast corridor, pursuant to contracts with the relevant states. The states partner with Amtrak to provide funding for their service and determine daily frequency and other operational attributions.

Both the state-supported and long-distance trains typically operate over tracks owned by other railroads. We call them host railroads. Federal law guarantees Amtrak access to the host railroads’ infrastructure for compensation, based on an incremental cost, and requires that Amtrak trains receive preference in dispatch over freight trains.

We believe that important and expanded state-supported service throughout the U.S. and Canada is key to our long-term growth. Some of our state-supported services have similar characteristics to Canada’s planned high-frequency service. Several have 10 or more round trips a day. A few operate over rail lines used almost exclusively by passenger rail. On several routes, trains operate at speeds of 110 miles per hour.

Our state-supported routes, like the Amtrak Cascades from Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver, British Columbia, the Chicago to St. Louis Lincoln service in the Midwest, and the Virginia service in the southeast continue to make investments over time, which have caused frequency, reliability and quality of service to improve over time.

Consider the state-supported service in Virginia, which began in 2009 with funding for a single daily round trip. Today, Virginia supports eight daily round trips between Washington, D.C. and various end points of the state. As frequency was added, ridership grew. Ten years ago, the Virginia service carried fewer than 900,000 passengers a year, whereas last year the same service carried 1,300,000 travellers, a remarkable 48% increase following that investment. This growth in ridership helped build support for “Transforming Rail in Virginia”, a state-led initiative that provides for five additional round trips per day by 2030, as well as increased reliability, greater convenience and improved customer experience.

Of course, the northeast corridor illustrates the value of high-frequency service even more clearly. Together, Amtrak’s high-speed Acela trains and its conventional northeast regional trains deliver hourly or better service during peak periods. Both routes are operationally profitable, and their combined ridership last year exceeded 12 million passengers, more than 40% of Amtrak’s system-wide total.

We greatly value the partnership with Canada. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the Canadian government and other stakeholders, especially with our partner, Via Rail, on issues like expanding pre-clearance, which will improve cross-border service. We would be delighted to see even more intercity passenger rail between our two countries, like the proposed connecting service between Detroit and Windsor.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Eaton.

Just a quick note to our witnesses for our first panel and for those who have already joined us for our second panel, the lights that you see flashing mean that a vote has been called in the House of Commons. I am required, per the regulations, to suspend the meeting to allow members to go and vote. We can anticipate that we will have everybody back here sometime between 11:50 a.m. and noon. We appreciate your patience in the meantime.

This meeting stands suspended until the vote is concluded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

We will begin our line of questioning for our witnesses today with you, Mr. Strahl. You have six minutes, please.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to split my time with Mr. Lewis.

I want to use the beginning of my time to move a motion that I tabled earlier this week regarding Lynx airlines. I will read that into the record, and then we can move ahead. The motion reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), given that Lynx Air has filed for court protection from creditors, stating that “the compounding financial pressures associated with inflation, fuel costs, exchange rates, cost of capital, regulatory costs and competitive tension in the Canadian market have ultimately proven too steep a mountain for our organization to overcome”, the committee invite the Minister of Transport, the commissioner of the Competition Bureau, the National Airlines Council of Canada and other witnesses the committee deems relevant to discuss the state of airline competition in Canada, and the committee report its findings to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's obviously been moved.

I would like to turn the time over to my colleague for further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Lewis.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague for sharing his time with me.

The nice thing about votes is that when we're waiting to vote we get a chance to speak to some of the witnesses off the record. I want to thank the mayor so much for the conversation.

For the rest of the committee, that conversation had to do with an article...down in Chatham—Kent—Leamington, right next door to my riding. It had to do with ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipalities Association. I understand there was and still is major concern with regard to the nearly one million acres of drainage between Toronto and Windsor. There's a fight, because the railroads are not paying their fair share, so taxpayers will be on the hook.

I'll switch gears over to the next news article I have, from Tuesday, July 27, 2021, when then-minister Alghabra came to the Windsor area. The headline reads that the federal transportation minister says Windsor to Toronto will be phase two of the high-frequency rail project, which in and of itself is exciting.

Mr. Eaton, I listened to your testimony keenly, and I loved the fact that at the very end you talked about Detroit to Windsor. In your opinion, because this is phase two, today, for Amtrak, Detroit to Windsor—and you spoke about high-frequency rail up to 110 miles an hour, I understand, in the United States—what impact will it have if the Windsor-to-Toronto corridor doesn't get done, for the folks you're looking to move to Windsor? My concern is that once you get to Windsor, you're stagnant.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Robert Eaton]

First of all, we're working very closely and very hard to establish that service between Windsor and Detroit, even without the high-frequency corridor. I think that connectivity will provide some utility. However, obviously, as I said in my testimony, as we continue to invest in the services, increasing frequency, increasing speed, that will actually move more passengers back and forth between those two cities.

I's a starting point, and then you build on that starting point.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, sir.

I just go back to the mayor's opening comments. She spoke about the strategic geographical location of Drummondville—and Essex County is very much Windsor, geographically.

When we see here that it's the second phase, in what time frame do you believe Amtrak—all the infrastructure, all the resources—will “land in Windsor”, so that we have an idea to be prepared to connect this back to the rest of the system?

[Robert Eaton]

We don't like to say “time frames”, because we know what happens in transportation, but I can definitely give you a better idea. Our network development team is leaning into this. We actually have preliminary designs. We're talking with the U.S. CBP and CBSA about the design of the pre-clearance facility in Windsor. I understand there's some motion on the Canadian side for funding for that project as well, through Transport Canada. We have both railroads—Via and Amtrak—CBSA and the U.S. CBP, as well as local government, coalescing around this issue with all diligence. I don't have an exact timeline, but we can keep you abreast of the situation.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I appreciate that. That would be great.

You sounded like government when you said you don't like to talk about time frames. That's respectable, and I appreciate your honesty.

This project to date has seen some pretty significant cost overruns. What does it look like in the United States? How have the budgeting and forecasting been with regard to the success the United States has had? I know you mentioned a few jurisdictions that are very successful. How many cost overruns were there?