Transport Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 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 continue its study on high-frequency rail in Canada.

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

I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses have been tested for sound and interpretation, and have passed the test.

Members, appearing before us today as witnesses, we have, from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, Mr. Marco D’Angelo, president and chief executive officer. Welcome, sir.

Virtually, from the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal, we have its president, Mr. Michel Leblanc.

Welcome.

From Unifor, we have Jennifer Murray, director for the Atlantic region, and Graham Cox, national representative, both by video conference. Welcome.

From Via Rail Canada, we have Mario Péloquin, president and chief executive officer, as well as Rita Toporowski, chief service delivery officer. Welcome to you both.

And lastly, from the city of Trois-Rivières, we have the mayor, Mr. Jean Lamarche.

Welcome to you as well.

We will begin with opening remarks. For that, I will turn the floor over to you, Mr. D'Angelo.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Marco D'Angelo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

It's great to be here this afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity.

Via Rail's high-frequency rail project is more than just a transportation initiative; it's a revolution that has the power to redefine how Canadians travel, meet one another and fulfil their potential.

The HFR will connect Canada's largest corridor, Quebec City to Windsor. With almost 20 million people already living in the region, and plans for another five million to move there, having options that are sufficient, frequent and reliable to connect Canadians affordably and quickly is paramount.

The high-frequency rail system will set off from the station near the port of Old Quebec City, travel through the central part of la Belle Province, cross Ontario, the greater Toronto area and stops at the Windsor-Detroit border, the crossing point for millions of people and billions of dollars in goods from everywhere in Canada. It's a major corridor, and current transportation capacity is inadequate.

CUTA recognizes that the success of HFR relies on accepting the challenge and the promise of connecting people. That means connecting with Canadians and consulting with transit authorities throughout the various project phases, and doing that early and often.

It's great that the HFR team has already been meeting with local transit systems like the TTC and others to have these important discussions. Maintaining a focus on the connections between the intracity HFR and intercity public transit is essential.

From the design and development through to day one of operations and beyond, we have before us an opportunity to build a connected travel experience in an era when more car traffic and short-haul planes will miss out on creating value by saving Canadians time and money and building on our productivity.

High-frequency rail is more than just a transportation project; it will reduce our carbon footprint, help combat climate change and improve quality of life for all Canadians.

Moreover, we have other programs coming online that will help us build transit more quickly. I think about the permanent public transit fund. The importance of this cannot be overstated in this context. The $3-billion annual fund, beginning in April 2026, will play a crucial role in providing the financial resources needed to support the transformational projects that will complement things like high-frequency rail.

These expenditures are also investments, more importantly, and they're investments in our nation's future. Continued support for the permanent transit fund and for transit systems will lead to a wide array of collective public benefits.

HFR also has some social benefits, such as making it easier for Canadians to visit their friends and relatives, enhancing access for people with reduced mobility and contributing to social cohesion through more frequent contacts between Canadians.

The economic benefits are just as important, because the project will create jobs, boost local economies and foster innovation in the transportation sector.

Let me briefly turn to transit-oriented development and communities. These offer sustainable and high-density living options that are accessible through public transit. By fostering TODs, we can reduce car dependency, lower our emissions and create vibrant communities.

The time to act, we believe, is now, as Canada's population is expected to reach 45 or 50 million people in the coming years. Today's transit systems are designed for about 25 million. We know there's a demand for over five million homes by 2030. We need those to adequately address our nation's housing supply requirements. CUTA released a housing and transit paper here in Parliament just a few weeks ago. I think the report will be helpful for the committee members as you progress through your study.

Transformational projects that will be funded through the permanent transit fund, again, can advance these aims, keeping in mind that HFR makes the links between our corridor cities real.

The HFR project is also a major and unique opportunity that can redefine how we travel and live in Canada. It will strengthen our biggest economic corridor, link our communities more readily and contribute to a better future for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have about this key project.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. D'Angelo.

Mr. Leblanc, you have five minutes for your opening address.

[Michel Leblanc, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you for inviting the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal to testify today.

First of all, I would say that the planned rail link between Quebec City and Windsor has been supported by the business community for at least 15 years. Business interests wanted to bring about a policy decision. The chamber of commerce is certain, and this has been corroborated by its analyses, that some of its clients would like to see the project go ahead and that they would use the train.

It is still being called an HFR, or “high-frequency rail” project. But the first thing I would like to tell you is that in the business community, there was a lot of wavering over whether to support a high-frequency or a high-speed rail project, and it has still not settled.

When we ask our clients, they tell us that the first factor that would determine the extent to which they would travel by train would be how fast they can get between Montreal and Quebec City, Montreal and Ottawa, and Montreal and Toronto. Schedule reliability and frequency of service come next. My view is that the committee should always keep these three variables in mind, and I would encourage you to think of them in that order.

From the business standpoint, this means that the first consideration in calls for proposals has to be how many of the segments would be high-speed. That should be the determining factor in project acceptability, because the cost is likely to be high.

Another factor that has become very important—it wasn't only 10 years ago—is the environmental impact of the project. It has been known for a long time that electric rail transport is an environmentally sound solution, but with the rapid transition, and the goals being pursued by governments and the population, electric high-frequency and high-speed rail is considered an essential part of the strategy for the greening of our economy.

Given this context, there has been strong support for downtown‑to‑downtown links. If you have to take other forms of transportation to get to the station, that weakens part of what we want to do, which is to generalize the use of trains to and from city centres to avoid the use of additional means of transportation.

Another issue has gained in importance over the past few years and that's the workforce shortage. Business people have understood that high-speed rail would extend city recruitment pools, not only for big cities, but also other towns and cities in between. That's considered a major advantage. The possibility of having employees who live in Trois-Rivières and work in Montreal, or vice versa, is considered by the business community to be a good solution for making the labour market more fluid. That's an additional argument in favour of rail links. However, once again, speed of travel is a key factor.

I would add that business people who travel a lot are very much aware of the fact that Canada, for at least 15 years, has a reputation of having neither high-speed nor high-frequency trains, whereas there are links of that kind elsewhere around the world. Business people have told me that Canada needs a high-speed train to demonstrate that it is a competitive economy with efficient transportation infrastructures, if only to counter the impression that Canada doesn't have the means or the vision necessary to do so. Some people point out that there was a time when it was generally felt that only two or three airports would be needed in Canada, while everywhere else in the world there was an airport in every major city. Today, rail links are considered an indicator of a green society that has adopted the proper tools.

Something else came up in our consultations, and that was the major economic benefits. Investing in infrastructures of this kind is so important because of the benefits for Canadian businesses and suppliers. We have to ensure that these economic benefits occur in high value-added business sectors. Simply pointing out that economic benefits are generated because the trains are maintained in Canada is not enough. Much more than that is required.

We can look at the United States and how it is deploying the Inflation Reduction Act as a regulatory and legal tool to strengthen the American economy. Similarly, high-frequency rail should strengthen Canada's economy; we need to forge ahead.

I'll conclude by saying that the business community is very skeptical when there is public debate without any transparent discussion of costs. No faith whatever is placed in numbers like $10 billion for high-frequency rail, or $65 billion for high-speed rail, both of which are figures that have been mentioned. The business community believes that unless actual costs are identified from the very outset, that there will be problems later on in terms of social acceptability and credibility.

As for tender calls, message number one is that accurate costs need to be spelled out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leblanc.

Next we have Ms. Murray and Graham Cox.

I will turn the floor over to both of you for your opening remarks. You have five minutes, please.

[Jennifer Murray, Director, Atlantic Region, Unifor]

Thank you.

My name is Jennifer Murray. I am the Atlantic regional director at Unifor.

Thank you to the committee for allowing us to contribute to your study of the Via Rail high-frequency rail project.

I come from a family of railway workers. My grandfather was a locomotive engineer with CN; my dad worked at CN; my brother is a Via Rail employee; and I have been a proud employee of Via Rail for 27 years, starting out at the train station in Sackville, New Brunswick, which unfortunately is now closed, along with many other stations across Canada.

Unifor represents the incredible hard workers who have built, maintained and serviced Via Rail's infrastructure, including those working face to face with the travelling public, since before it became a Crown company through the privatization of CN Rail and an order in council, which would have actually been better served as a legislated Via Rail act.

To start, let me say that we are very supportive of investments in passenger rail in Canada. Unifor and our predecessor unions have long advocated for massive investments in higher-speed and dedicated intercity passenger rail services. We believe that public passenger rail has always been an obvious and necessary solution to the unique weather and geographic conditions in Canada.

However, Unifor is very concerned about the use of public-private partnerships, especially when it comes to transport. No matter how many attempts there are to call these structures “modern”, they are simply subsidies to commercial interests that end up costing taxpayers more money to get a service rather than doing it in-house. Report after report has shown this, and yet here we are again saying it will be different this time. P3s for operations are a leftover from the previous era of ideologically driven privatization. Decades of failures of this model show there is no magic to be found and no actual competition resulting in higher-quality services, because transport like this is a natural monopoly.

Unifor has a lot of experience dealing with railway employers, public and private. We know first-hand how tight the grip on these operations needs to be or they extract a huge price. We also know that Canadians were promised, and deserve, a passenger rail system that is accessible, reliable and affordable. All that is going to happen here is further fragmentation of the rail system, making it even harder to achieve a common vision for green transportation of the future. This fragmentation of HFR and Via already shows that the focus of providing service to the entire Canadian public has been undermined. These services cannot be determined in isolation. Quality public transport should not just be between current economic centres. It is about expanding the potential of all Canadians, no matter where they live, a comment we have heard from municipal leaders across this country.

Interest in commercial investments in one part of the system cannot be allowed to cannibalize needed investments in the rest of the system, a false division created by the plans for partial privatization. Are we really to believe that we do not have the expertise needed to run the corridor but we do have it for the rest of the system? Either the government is saying they don't have any intention to develop the rest of the system, or the excuse for HFR is not valid. The fact that the RFP involves two state-owned European rail companies just shows how ridiculous the notion that we need private sector expertise is.

We see the current process as a delay tactic, as a way to involve more consultants, repeating the studies that have already been done, to build something we already know how to build, a delay because it is an expensive project and there is a constant fear of spending big money. You don't build big things without spending big money, and a delay of true investment now means even more spending.

Constant delays have already had an impact on the rest of the rail system. Underinvestment in the rest of the passenger rail system relegates much of our intercity passenger rail to enthusiasts, history buffs and communities of people who rely on Via Rail to get to where they need to be. The lack of proper planning for a functioning public passenger rail system is the cause. Studies and consultations are carried out and then shelved, as if the goal were the study itself, as if the ideas will result in someone else building it. But passenger rail systems do not work that way. They are built and supported with public money. They must be regulated and refined constantly to facilitate upgrades. This is a costly endeavour, like all transport systems. In fact, if we look to other countries, including just south of the border, they can be a model of how proper investment in a public passenger rail system is done and beneficial.

Because they are costly, we must also make sure the wealth created by building and operating these systems stays right here. Rail is about nation building and economic development—not just the products and people who roll across the tracks, but the building, maintenance and work done to keep it going. If we continue to privatize these services to companies outside of Canada, or anywhere, we forgo a significant part of the economic benefits of building rail and further divide our rail system.

Unifor recommends that the government review the HFR structure and take some bold steps in investing in a real public passenger rail system, one the whole nation can be proud of.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Murray.

I am now giving the floor to Mr. Péloquin and Ms. Toporowski for five minutes.

[Mario Péloquin, President and Chief Executive Officer, VIA Rail Canada Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address you on behalf of Via Rail. With me is my colleague Ms. Rita Toporowski, Chief Service Delivery Officer.

As you know, I started as CEO in June. It is an honour to join Via Rail at such an extraordinary time.

Passenger rail in Canada started about 200 years ago. It had a very humble beginning. Since then, of course, the industry has progressed in leaps and bounds. Today, people are recognizing train travel's vast potential. It is sustainable, it connects communities, and it benefits both the economy and the planet.

Via Rail was created as a Crown corporation in the 1970s. Today, it is an innovative and efficient leader in passenger transportation. We've been connecting Canadians for over 45 years.

At Via Rail, we put the customer first and connect communities across Canada. Our people and corporate culture prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion in everything we do. We are an environmentally responsible mode of transportation, and we continue to innovate to become even better. Our approach promotes sustainability, both strategically and financially. And, of course, our focus is always on safety and security.

Via Rail is not only an expert in passenger rail transport in Canada, but also an innovative, environmentally responsible company committed to connecting communities. Our services are also often crucial for indigenous communities, where travel without trains is sometimes very difficult, if not impossible.

As I'm sure you know, we are currently receiving state-of-the-art trains for our corridor operations. These modern, accessible and even more environmentally friendly trains are bringing Via Rail into the 21st century, putting us on par with passenger rail transporters all over the world.

Since Via Rail owns only 3% of the tracks we use, our trains often have to wait behind freight and commuter trains, which unfortunately makes them chronically late. For example, on the Montreal-Ottawa line, where we have complete control of the tracks, our trains are on time more than 90% of the time, while on the rest of the network, where we run trains on other host railroads, we struggle to achieve 60% punctuality. This is very frustrating for passengers and for our company.

The dramatic increase in freight transport is great for the country's economy, but it's quite literally pushing passenger rail to the sidelines as the increase in traffic is easier to handle than the mix of trains of different speeds.

With all that in mind, of course Via Rail will always support better, faster, more efficient passenger rail service to connect more Canadians and give priority to passenger service. The impact will be dramatic.

In fact, the current high-frequency rail project in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor was conceived and planned by Via Rail. Higher speeds and more frequent passenger train service in the Quebec City-Toronto and the Edmonton, Calgary and Banff regions would be of great benefit economically and socially to a larger segment of our population.

That is a vision Via Rail supports and can be a key partner in creating.

All Canadians deserve a modern passenger rail service that is comfortable, efficient, accessible, safe, and environmentally friendly. For Via Rail, this must start with the renewal of Canada's long-distance and regional trains, since the eventual arrival of a new service in the corridor does not affect the fact that we must continue to serve off-corridor routes, including northern regions, and our current rolling stock is very old by any standards.

Our 45 years of experience and expertise should assure you that our team has the skills to support any expansion of HFR and HSR services. As we have the most experience in the field of passenger rail transportation over long distances, we must be a key partner in passenger rail projects across Canada so that we continue to connect Canadians in every region of the country and offer them the passenger rail service they deserve.

We're happy to take your questions now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Péloquin.

The next speaker is Mayor Jean Lamarche.

Mr. Lamarche, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Jean Lamarche, Mayor, Ville de Trois-Rivières]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, good afternoon.

When I attend meetings to promote my city, I often say that what the most beautiful cities in the world have in common is the combined presence of an airport, a port, a train station and a university worthy of the name.

Thanks to the Canadian government in particular, Trois-Rivières will soon find itself in the company of these cities. All it needs now are facilities for high-frequency rail.

Why should HFR go through Trois-Rivières?

I believe that Trois-Rivières, as the capital of the Mauricie region, is a major strategic hub. It is also near regions like Lanaudière, Centre‑du‑Québec, Capitale-Nationale, and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, to be sure, but also territories like Wemotaci, Manawan, Obedjiwan, Wôlinak and Odanak.

With Trois-Rivières so close to all these places, it is highly accessible from the regional standpoint. It is also ideally suited to an intermodal approach. In fact, the highway 55 system, which links northern and southern Quebec, and highway 40, which does approximately the same thing from east to west, puts us in a favourable position.

The redevelopment and repair work currently being done at the Trois-Rivières airport, with federal government and other funding, provides rapid rail links to air transportation, and to work sites in places like northern Quebec.

I am now going to talk about healthy economic growth in the Trois-Rivières ecosystem.

As you know, with the introduction of the Vallée de la Transition énergétique—energy transition valley—project for the cities of Shawinigan, Bécancour and Trois-Rivières, we will have to be travelling to the various head offices that are going to set up shop nearby. We will also, as Mr. Leblanc mentioned, have to be able to deal with employee travel to Montreal, as well as places like Trois-Rivières and Bécancour.

Within the Vallée de la Transition énergétique, Trois-Rivières, as you know, will be handling the key decarbonization file. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in various ways, but it must be made clearly visible to people. We can do just that through rail passenger transportation.

Some challenges and a degree of skepticism still remain, even in the city of Trois-Rivières. For example, people are still wondering where the train station will be located. We would like to know that as soon as possible. We would like the location to be central, but even before that, we want to know that the station will indeed be located here. When the time comes, we'll be ready to discuss matters and offer our collaboration.

When high-frequency trains are being discussed, people naturally ask me some questions. They want to know just how frequent the trains will be. They wonder what high-frequency rail means. I'm convinced that effective communication will be important and contribute to the project's social acceptability.

The final question is what rails our high-frequency trains will be travelling on?

We naturally hope that they will not be the lines being used by freight trains, to ensure that everything can run efficiently without affecting our city's economic growth and development, which depend, among other things, on the transportation of goods to and from the port of Trois-Rivières.

In short, this is a major project. It's the biggest Canadian infrastructure project, and Trois-Rivières will become the flagship of its regional vision. That's why I would like to thank you and offer my support.

I'll be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have six minutes, please.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for coming today. This is a very important initiative and we're looking forward to your testimony on this matter.

When it comes to building public transit, there have been a number of high-profile failures. In Toronto, there has been much delay in the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. In Ottawa, we've seen ongoing problems with the light rail system from the beginning.

What steps do you think the government needs to take to ensure that the VIA HFR project does not fall behind schedule, does not go over budget or isn't simply an unreliable project? What steps does the government need to take to make sure that we're not seeing that?

Perhaps Mr. Péloquin could answer that question.

[Mario Péloquin]

Thank you for the question.

There was an order in council, in March 2022, that created a new subsidiary called Via HFR, which is to be run at arm's length from Via Rail Canada. For obvious reasons, they'll focus on the new project, while we focus on continuing to transport Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That being the case, the approach and the method to ensure on-time performance and on-budget performance will rest solely with the Via HFR organization.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I think you gave some evidence about the delays that are experienced. Imposing a new project.... It will be running on the same lines at different speeds. Is that correct?

[Mario Péloquin]

Thank you for the clarification question.

My understanding at this point—keeping in mind that Via HFR is going to run the analysis and the decisions on alignment and how it's going to be run—is that there would be a dual service: the corridor would continue operating and at the same time there would be a new alignment or a new service, called the Via HFR service, which could be independent from the existing tracks today or supplementary.

Again, that question is better posed to the Via HFR team.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

So you don't have any information about what kinds of changes would need to be made in order to create some compatibility in the systems and about the impact they would have on the types of services that are delivered by your organization.

[Mario Péloquin]

Thank you for the question.

Look, we're experts in passenger rail service in Canada. We understand the complexities of operating passenger rail on freight tracks and commuter lines. That's what we do across the country. That being the case, we do know certain aspects of what could be done in order to increase our on-time performance, which I believe is where the question is going. However, we don't own the infrastructure, so we have very few levers we can use in order to change the infrastructure and so on.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My next question is for Mr. D'Angelo.

I'm curious about the delays. We know the HFR project is scheduled for 2030. That's almost 10 years from now and more than 20 years from the original date on which it was scheduled to close. How realistic is this 2030 timeline?

[Marco D'Angelo]

We can look at the cost of inaction and delaying. We're really excited that HFR has gotten as far as it has. Where it goes next we think can be done in an affordable, responsible way, as the HFR CEO talked about when he presented last time.

I'm also happy to report that across Canada, while there are many challenges facing urban rail projects, in the city of Edmonton, the Valley Line Southeast was opened over the weekend, and that was fantastic; the REM project is continuing its construction while it has opened the new service from Gare Centrale to Brossard; and, of course, we were very excited to read in the throne speech in Alberta Premier Smith's commitment to exploring a Banff-to-Calgary link to the airport, but also looking ahead to Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton.

There are governments across Canada that are putting best practices together to make sure we build a rail future for Canadian travellers.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I've had experience with one project. It was a public-private partnership that basically shut down because of inflationary projections. They had not projected for inflation. Do you see any risk of that in this project?

[Marco D'Angelo]

Well, I don't have the exact project you're thinking of, but it's—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Fortis was the name.

[Marco D'Angelo]

In the transit space, the City of Edmonton utilized a P3 model to open the Valley Line, similar to what was done with Vancouver's Canada Line before the Olympics and also in the region of Waterloo, delivering transit across Kitchener, which is being done through different P3 models. There are ways they can work to add value and to deliver transit to Canadians when they need it most, which is yesterday or as soon as possible, so we can reach them and they can connect around their communities.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Is it normal to have cost analyses that have inflationary projections included in the project so that we're not faced with wasting taxpayer dollars when people are going to food banks and don't have enough food to eat?

[Marco D'Angelo]

If you take a look at the Ontario budget for this past year, the Ontario government was reserving, previously to the budget, about $70 billion over the next decade. Because of inflation, that number was changed to about $70.7 billion over the decade, cognizant of inflation.