Transport Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I believe that this is also part of Bill C-33 on port modernization. Are you able to tell us how it would be different from the pilot project, which I believe is for 18 to 24 months? If a shipper is in a situation where they would like to use the interswitching, do they need to apply, or has the process changed?

[Arun Thangaraj]

I'll turn that over to my colleague, Craig.

[Craig Hutton, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport]

Thanks very much for the question.

With respect to interswitching, it will require a legislative change first, so that will need to be considered by Parliament. Following that, this is a tool that shippers could use in their negotiations with the railways.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

My understanding is that it would be automatic. Is my understanding correct?

[Craig Hutton]

Once that amendment comes forward, it will be clear in terms of the process by which that method will be enabled.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I also wanted to ask a question on the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, which recently decided not to move forward with the rolling truck age program that had originally been introduced under the Stephen Harper government.

Can you explain what role Liberal MPs in B.C. played in getting the port authority to put its plan on hold?

[Arun Thangaraj]

Thank you for the question.

What we were looking at as part of that program was to ensure that the operations and the movement of goods in the port and through the supply chain were as smooth as possible. We noted that during the pandemic, with the atmospheric rivers and the fire, the movement of goods, especially in and out of the port, became really critical.

In 2022, there was a delay, given the impact of the pandemic. Earlier this year, we asked the port to look at new technologies and other measures that it can use to assess the overall greenhouse gas reduction strategy that the port has. We will continue to work with the port to find a common path forward to reduce pollution, protect jobs and keep goods moving.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Thank you Deputy Minister Thangaraj.

Mr. Garon, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The federal government recently acquired lands related to the former Rabaska project for the Port of Quebec.

Could you tell me what Transport Canada's role was in the acquisition of this land and also if there is any specific project related to these new acquisitions?

[Arun Thangaraj]

Thank you for the question. I'll turn to my colleague, Stephanie, for further details on that.

When the ports acquire lands, it requires ministerial approval. That was provided, as you noted. However, I don't have any specific details with me right now on the project.

I'll ask my colleague if she might.

[Stephanie Hébert, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Department of Transport]

Mr. Chair, I think this is a matter where we will have to follow up with the committee, in terms of the specifics of this particular project

And can you tell us why the land was acquired?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Has Transport Canada acquired land in the past without having a specific project in mind?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Thank you for the question.

Land acquisition is very often done for specific projects and for specific purposes. With respect to the project to which you refer, I do not have the details in hand. It is therefore very difficult for me to answer the question. However, you always have to have an objective in place. Transport Canada rarely acquires land. Normally, it is the ports that have this responsibility. We will follow up on that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I would appreciate it if you could provide a written response to the committee.

I would now like to ask a question in relation to the airport infrastructure installed in my riding. Last fall, there was a fire on the Mirabel airport grounds. The airport authorities decided not to send the airport firefighters, which caused delays. One man died in the fire. When a firefighter finally decided to intervene, he was suspended by the airport authorities. I know that this is under the purview of Aéroports de Montréal.

Then, of course, there was interest in the issue of airport security. I met with a lot of people in the business. They told me that there would be imminent dangers to the safety of the public, passengers and employees, particularly with respect to the number of firefighters on duty at Dorval and Mirabel. Indeed, the number seems to be far below U.S. standards, for example.

In fact, in 2019, Aéroports de Montréal asked Mr. Daniel Dufresne, a health and safety consultant, to conduct an analysis on this subject. When Aéroports de Montréal executives received the report and saw the content, they decided not to share it with either the unions or the employees.

Could Transport Canada take steps to ensure that the unions and this committee have access to the report produced by Mr. Dufresne in 2019?

[Nicholas Robinson]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not aware of the report you mentioned, but I will speak specifically to firefighting regulations within airports.

We have firefighting regulations and rules within airports. They're based on the number of passengers an airport may receive over a certain period of time. Subsequently, they need a certain amount of firefighting service to be provided in the case of an emergency with aircraft. If there are reports, whether they be by an operator or another individual, that suggest an airport is outside of those regulations, we would investigate it like any other security or safety risk, but we inspect airports based on the firefighting regulations we have.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

I'm told that airports of a similar category in the U.S. would probably have double the number of firefighters. It would be interesting to verify that. There has been a lack of transparency at Aéroports de Montréal, so I'm not surprised that you're not more aware of this report, as many other people are not as well. If you could send a response to the committee on this matter, we would appreciate it.

I will ask you a technical question that I asked the minister earlier. In terms of high-frequency trains, how many people do you estimate would take the train instead of their cars once the project is deployed? We are wondering, and I would like to know if quantitative comparisons have also been made by Transport Canada to see how many people would make the transition if there were a high-speed train project, or HST. We know that the HST is faster and that speed is a major incentive to take the train.

Have estimates been produced as to how many people would switch from cars to trains? If so, can you inform the committee, perhaps even in writing?

[Vincent Robitaille, Assistant Deputy Minister, High Frequency Rail, Department of Transport]

Thank you for the question.

With respect to the proposed high-frequency rail, or HFR, project, for which the procurement process has been initiated, it will need to increase ridership in the corridor at the very least from 5 million in 2019, approximately, to 16 million in 2050. This is already mentioned in the call for tenders. We are talking about tripling the number of passengers. This growth will be related to reduced travel time and increased reliability, and to the fact that existing riders will be taking the train more often. There are already a lot of people who take the train, but they don't take it as often as they'd like because there aren't enough trains now. The schedules are not good enough. In addition, a large proportion of the new passengers will be people who used to fly or drive. We're talking about doubling, roughly, the number of passengers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Robitaille and Mr. Garon.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

The floor is yours. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair

I'm going to pick up where my colleague left off, talking a bit more about high-frequency rail. It seems like there are two key fundamental questions at play here. One is the decision between high-frequency rail and high-speed rail, and the other is the difference between public procurement and the P3 model that the Liberal government seems fixated on pursuing.

My question to the department is whether these questions were explored with formal assessments prior to the issuing of the request for an expression of interest for the HFR project.

[Arun Thangaraj]

I'll answer in part, and then Vincent will jump in.

With respect to high frequency and high speed, part of the design of a process is to allow the market to determine which one would work better. I think we've set out objectives in terms of shortening journey times and achieving higher speeds in the corridor. What the response will come back with is a solution that may integrate high speed or rest solely with high frequency.

I think, at the end of the day, the resulting project will improve rail service, have faster journey times and serve more communities than are served currently. As Vincent said, there will be a marked increase in passengers using rail.

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

However, Transport Canada and the government have already prescribed the sandbox in which they want these private sector companies to put forward proposals. They've described a high-frequency rail project. This is my understanding. When I met with Via Rail, they talked about the design of the project in quite a bit of detail. There's been a lot of thinking that's been put into it.

In choosing to go down that path—because high-frequency rail is a fundamentally different product and different service from high-speed rail—was there a formal assessment done prior to making the decision that said, “We're going to go the HFR route, not the high-speed rail route”?

[Vincent Robitaille]

Just to build on the response of the deputy minister, the process includes both the procurement selection of the private partner and the codevelopment period of four years working with them. It's specifically designed to encourage them to investigate whether and where high-speed segments could make sense to provide the best service possible. It's designed this way to have this assessment, but also to do it in a way that protects taxpayers' interests and achieves value for money.

There are many services around the world. I think there was some mention of that in your previous question. If we look at Germany and Morocco, those are mixed services. You have a high-speed train that can run at 250 kilometres per hour. At some point it gets to the city, when it slows down for a period of time. It's done in that way to, again, look at the significant infrastructure costs that are necessary for high speed and to deploy it at the best place possible.

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

All right. What I'm hearing from you is that the scope of the project as currently defined is broad enough to include high-speed rail as it's traditionally defined. It's just curious that the government promotes it as a “high-frequency” rail project with speeds of 200 kilometres an hour, and not “high-speed”. They talk about it in a fair amount of detail, which seems to be putting their thumbs on the scale of what they are expecting from these private sector proponents. I'll just leave that there.

My other question is around procurement and whether a formal evaluation was conducted looking at public procurement versus the P3 model on value for money, risk and the public interest. Was there a formal evaluation prior to the request for expressions of interest?

[Arun Thangaraj]

Under the model, as the minister said, the subsidiary of Via, Via HFR, remains public. The choice of the procurement process and using a private sector partner was precisely chosen to allow for the greatest amount of innovation, looking at, again, service but also how we transfer revenue risk, benefit taxpayers, increase ridership and—

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

I appreciate and understand the rationale that the government uses for choosing that path. My question was a very specific one: Was there a formal evaluation of procurement models prior to the request for expressions of interest?