Transport Committee on Sept. 20th, 2023

[Martin Imbleau]

Our role will be to handle the procurement phase, jointly with our Transport Canada colleagues. Next year, we'll take over supervision of the work that's done. We will co‑develop the project with a private partner so we can select solutions, make sure they are economic and identify the right trade-offs. We'll work with the private partner and make the final recommendation to the appropriate authorities. Consequently, we're setting up a project office with its own in‑house competence so we can make appropriate recommendations.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Massicotte, in an ideal world, we would have a high-speed train, an HST. If it were decided that an HST would simply be too costly, would you still be in favour of a high-frequency train, an HFT, that would provide more frequent stops, higher speeds and greater reliability?

[Patrick Massicotte]

The position we've adopted is that we don't necessarily have the expertise to determine whether an HFT or HST should go ahead. What's important for us is that there be a station in Trois-Rivières to promote the region's economic development.

We're well aware that consumers and entrepreneurs have to change means of transportation: They have to stop using their vehicles and take the train to achieve transportation economies if they have to travel from city to city. We also have to ensure they're able to work while they travel.

Could a hybrid mode be a solution? We aren't necessarily stating a choice between an HFT or an HST. What's important for us is that there be a station in our city.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I know the final route hasn't been determined yet. What are the various factors that have to be considered in deciding that route?

[Martin Imbleau]

You have to consider the number of passengers who will use the train, distances and the economic aspect. The mandate letters that we've received from the department already suggest some essential stations.

In the process we undertake with the private partner to provide the best possible service, we'll have to come up with the right solution regarding stations as well as the cost, which will have to be the best one possible. Obviously, the more stations there are, the slower the train will be and the less the service may potentially be used. These are the decisions we'll have to make, in addition to accommodating the specific factors that Transport Canada and the minister have indicated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono and Mr. Imbleau.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Imbleau, congratulations on your appointment. I'm very proud that a citizen from my constituency is handling this project. I hope that you'll do us proud and that this great project is completed at low cost and provides maximum service and maximum speed.

My first question is one that must be on the minds of many Canadians. It isn't directly related to the other questions that have been asked today, but it comes up every time a major infrastructure project is considered. It concerns the matter of local content.

We have industrial capacity in Quebec. We have expertise, by which I mean people who can build the kind of trains that could ride the rails of the future high-frequency or high-speed train. I'd like to know whether, in your mandate or in your vision of things, there's a willingness to ensure that the project has an economic impact here, since we have the expertise to carry out this kind of project.

[Martin Imbleau]

Thank you for your kind words. I'll do my best, as a citizen of your constituency, not to embarrass you.

This is, first and foremost, a civil engineering project designed to build civil infrastructure, which is done locally. Building tracks and installing power lines are definitely things that are done locally. Right off the bat, the project will really maximize Canadian impacts simply as a result of geography. General contractors and firms from here generally reap the main economic benefits of these infrastructure projects.

Second, we will obviously abide by our international economic free-trade obligations. We will have to solicit bids in order to select the right companies. However, this is a civil engineering project in very large part, and, in my experience, civil engineering is mainly done by very local firms.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

What about locomotives and railcars, for example?

[Martin Imbleau]

That ultimately represents a small portion of the project budget. The locomotive and railcar component generates quite limited economic impact compared to the rest of the budget. Even if we went in that direction, project engineering and construction would produce more significant economic impacts. I would note once again that we have international obligations that we must meet for certain—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

That's fine. So I understand that there isn't any commitment in that regard. We would obviously like there to be one. That's why I wanted to hear your opinion on the matter because we have good jobs that we want to preserve here at home. I understand that there has to be a process, but, on the other hand, if our bids are competitive, why not consider them?

My next question for you is one that's on the minds of many people. It concerns the debate that has already begun on the choice between a high-frequency train, an HFT, and a high-speed train, an HST. You say that speed isn't the issue, and you can explain that to me once again after I've finished asking my question, but many people say that an HFT would travel at a speed comparable to that of present trains and that minor amounts of time would be gained on travel between Montreal and Quebec City. That's the example I'm using in this case.

On the one hand, one wonders whether it's worth the investment to build another rail line if it doesn't save a significant amount of time. On the other hand, you wonder whether it can encourage a significant number of car and airline users to switch to the train, which, if I'm not mistaken, is the objective.

Do we think we can make those people switch if there are no time gains or if cars are still a faster means of transportation than trains?

[Martin Imbleau]

Thank you for your question.

First, one thing I should have said in my opening remarks is that it's no longer possible to add trains to the current corridor because the tracks belong to someone else. Consequently, even though we want people to take the train instead of their cars, there's no room for more passengers. We would have to prioritize passengers over freight, which is virtually impossible on tracks that now belong to other railway companies. We therefore have to build something new.

Second, reliability is key. Referring to the example cited earlier, we departed late and we've arrived late. Reliability will be one of the major factors in convincing people to give up their cars.

Third, I want to discuss my personal experience. You obviously travel extensively in Europe. You've travelled, as I have. However, I regularly take the train when I'm in Europe. In particular, I've travelled from Paris to Brussels and from Brussels to Amsterdam on the same high-speed train service, Thalys. We covered the 300 kilometres from Paris to Brussels in an hour and a half. That's very fast. However, we travelled the 220 kilometres to Amsterdam on the same train in two hours. Why? Because the train stopped more frequently in densely populated centres. The choice is based on environmental and economic gains and the populations served.

The same is true in the corridor we're concerned with here. If you want to stop in Peterborough and Trois‑Rivières, to create wealth, you have to have a train suited to the communities that'll be served.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I'll use an example to clarify my question.

Suppose the train trip takes a predictable time, say two and a half or three hours. Suppose as well that the trip is 10 minutes shorter by car and that you won't have to wait at the station, you can depart and arrive when you want, and you won't have to wonder whether the station is located downtown or in some remote area of the city requiring you to take another form of transportation to reach your destination. In that case, how can we really make the train appealing for people who take it?

My objective is to ensure that a train is available, that people will ideally use it in large numbers, that it will link the various core areas and that it will be fast. However, if the trip takes as much time as by car, or more, I don't see why people would take the train. So I want to ensure that people are genuinely encouraged to take that train and that there's a genuine benefit in doing so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 15 seconds left.

[Martin Imbleau]

In all those scenarios, it will be faster to take the train than to go by car. We'll make sure that stations are well situated so that people are encouraged to take it. Furthermore, as I told you, there will be a basic service and an even faster service for travel between the various stations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

The floor is yours. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of our witnesses. Thanks for being with us this evening. I'm looking forward to this study. I think it's going to be of interest to a lot of Canadians.

I'd like to start my questions with Mr. Johnson. What you had to say about this project was very enlightening, particularly all of the twists and turns it's taken since its first iteration.

I'd like to start from the perspective of being a British Columbia MP representing a rural region in the northwest of the province that's thousands of kilometres from here and that has a passenger rail system that is a mere shadow of what it used to be. When I talk to people about train service—or bus service, for that matter—so many people talk to me about their vision of having reliable and effective passenger rail service, yet the current Via Rail service through our region is terribly unreliable. It can't be used as basic transportation but only as, really, a tourist sort of opportunity.

When we look at this idea of essentially privatizing Canada's busiest passenger rail corridor and the source of some 85% of Via Rail's revenue—we're going to hand all that over, including the conventional Via Rail service along that corridor, to a private company and take it out of Via Rail's hands entirely—it would seem that our public passenger rail provider in this country is going to be left with the guts and feathers of passenger rail. I'm very concerned about what the fate of rail service in other parts of the country is going to be.

Can you kind of play the tape forward 20 years? What does this look like for Via Rail?

[Terence Johnson]

What this looks like, potentially, is that, if the rest of Via Rail continues to operate as a public service, it needs a very much larger subsidy to provide all the core services that are currently shared with the corridor. That, I think, would be something that we feel wouldn't actually happen at all, and you would in fact see trains like the Skeena just disappear, because the government would look at that and say, “We can't possibly subsidize that.”

The original vision of HFR was to triage the corridor, build a strong financial foundation, build from it, be able to look at Calgary-Edmonton, be able to rebuild our long-distance services and be able to support our remote services to northern and indigenous communities. The surplus of this project—all of the benefits of this project—would be for Canadians and would flow back into making our network stronger.

That is our largest concern with this. By taking revenue risk and putting it on the table, it's going to cost more, it's going to be years before we even begin to lay any track and, at the end of the day, it's going to cost Canadians more for the same train that we had a blueprint for in 2018 and could have got on with building.

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

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

There is a very stark contrast in those two visions: investing in public rail and the capacity of our public passenger rail provider and then seeing those benefits across the country versus privatizing the cash cow of passenger rail in Canada and letting the rest of the rail system wither on the branch. If I understand you correctly, those are the two pictures you've painted.

I'd like to turn to another aspect. This builds on the idea of investing in the capacity of our government and our public passenger rail provision here in Canada. It's rather ironic that the three consortiums that have been selected to compete for this project include a number of rail companies from Europe that are publicly owned.

Essentially, other countries have invested in their capacity in terms of public passenger rail and have built up the expertise to the point where we have to pay them to come and build trains in our country. Is that an irony that is accurate?

[Terence Johnson]

Actually, it's an irony that people think exists, but it isn't even actually accurate. At the moment in the GTA, we have ONxpress partners who have been selected to do codevelopment for GO expansion. They are hiring hundreds of positions for Canadians. They're hiring the same people that Metrolinx could have hired directly.

This will be the same here. Via Rail already worked with Systra. It already worked with private partners. It was already going to work with private construction industries to build new infrastructure. The only thing that's changed is that now operations are on the table, and there's no great secret to doing train operations. If you want to know how SNCF does something, you pick up a phone: “Bonjour, how do you do this thing?”

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

What you're saying is—

[Terence Johnson]

There are not trade secrets here. There is a tremendous amount of transparency in this industry because they are all public. Via Rail is perfectly capable of running the service. The building of it was always going to involve the private sector—projects always do—but the operation doesn't need to be outsourced.

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

What you're saying essentially is that we have the capacity to a large extent in Canada. We're just going to lose it to the private sector and then have to buy it back at a higher price. Is that it...?

[Terence Johnson]

That would be accurate as to what our fear is about this project.

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

Okay.

Mr. Chair, how many minutes do I have left?