Transport Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. D'Angelo, do you want to comment on that as well?

[Marco D'Angelo]

What's clear is that you have a congested area between Quebec City and Windsor. We know that Canadians and travellers want to take advantage of getting between those cities for work, for meetings and for tourism. You've seen the number of flights grow. Porter Airlines is expanding the number of services they offer, flying out of Pearson. You see the congestion on our roads and the opening of additional highways to better connect out of the greater Toronto area to move eastward, like the 407 East and other road expansion projects. The hunger and the need are out there.

Rail can provide a productivity opportunity to keep working during those times and stay in contact with family by being on land and able to use Wi-Fi effectively on board, along with other amenities. There are a number of great arguments for the need to connect people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. D'Angelo.

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to give Mr. Leblanc the opportunity to answer my last question, if he can remember it.

[Michel Leblanc]

I apologize, but I don't remember it. Can you repeat it, please?

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

Certainly.

My question was about the difference between the projected cost given by the government authorities and how it compares to similar costs elsewhere. It would appear that a high-speed rail project would cost three or four times more than what we saw in Madrid, for example.

[Michel Leblanc]

As it happens, I asked a number of specialists that very question.

First of all, there are the costs tied to the complexity of completing that kind of project in Canada, because we've never built that type of track before. That could explain why it's so much more expensive. In addition, expropriation costs are much higher in Canada than in Europe for high-speed rail projects, particularly for routes into cities.

I'll conclude by mentioning, as I said at the end of my address, that serious work needs to be done on project costs, because that would allow genuine public debate based on actual costs, which we don't have at the moment.

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

Thank you.

It's true that it's rather hard to reach decisions based on hearsay. We would certainly like to know what the real cost difference is, but we don't have any data, just rumours.

Mr. Lamarche, I'd like to hear about your role in this project.

Trois-Rivières is, after all, rather central, at least from Quebec's standpoint. The future train would go through Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières. Have you been consulted about details such as where the train would be stopping? Do you have any thoughts about links to downtown? How are you, as the mayor, involved in this project ? How does the Crown corporation communicate with you?

[Jean Lamarche]

As the mayor, I began by consulting our urban planning and development teams, and our engineers, who are never too far away. I wanted to look at the possibilities. We have a station, which is owned by the city of Trois-Rivières. It's close to downtown, in fact it is downtown. The station will be available if we need it.

However, I'd say that I intend to choose the best option. If a train station located to the west of the city centre were suggested—the station I mentioned is at the eastern end of the downtown area—I would consider it. It would depend on various factors.

I don't know whether you wanted to go that far, but the city of Trois-Rivières' role includes promoting the project, or at least keeping it alive.

I was proud to first announce this project with Mr. Garneau in 2019, and then with Mr. Alghabra, and I'm going to continue with these efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Next, we have Mr. Bachrach for two and a half minutes, please.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. D'Angelo from the Canadian Urban Transit Association.

I believe I heard you use the phrase “people come before goods”, and this very much reflects the line of questioning that I was presenting to Mr. Péloquin. I wonder if CUTA would support legislation or regulations in Canada that would codify that principle of passengers before freight on our rail network?

[Marco D'Angelo]

Yes, indeed, I think that's something that would take further study. On its face, it sounds as if that would be very helpful.

Just look at the example, about a month ago, where CN, which manages the rail corridor around Union Station, lost some Internet connectivity, and as a result systems like Metrolinx were not able to deliver along the Lakeshore line for a few hours. This left passengers stranded or waiting. As an example, southwest of that, as far as London, there were impacts just based on that.

I think there is room for regulation in that area.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll go briefly to Ms. Murray.

Your testimony reflects very closely our deep concerns with the way that HFR has turned out in terms of the government's conceptualization of it and the privatization model. You spoke very briefly about examples from other jurisdictions, where there is good public high-speed rail, that could inform Canada's approach. Could you elaborate a little bit on examples around the world of where high-speed or high-frequency rail has been built using public procurement?

[Jennifer Murray]

Thank you for that.

Certainly, we can. We're prepared for that.

I'm going to pass the floor over to Graham Cox, please.

[Graham Cox, National Representative, Unifor]

Thanks.

We can certainly pull up a list of other countries that invest in public passenger rail. I think two of the examples in the consortia are good examples of procurement through public passenger rail, since they are state-owned companies, in Spain and in Germany, but, certainly, there are other jurisdictions, like the United States, that invest in public passenger rail quite effectively.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

Thank you, Mr. Cox.

Next, we will go back to Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I heard this, and no one is malicious when they are saying this.... We heard it in the first meetings we had prior to another study we have undertaken, talking about this benefiting all Canadians and being a nation-building project and things like that. I think we do have to keep in mind that if 25 million or 20 million people can access it, there are 20 million who can't. The people in my riding would have to take a four-day train trip to be able to access the front end of this project in order to benefit from it.

It is an important regional project. It connects two provinces and several major urban centres, but I think we do have to be a little aware that this isn't the Canadian Pacific Railway connecting the country and bringing us together at Confederation. This is a very regional project that will benefit a significant portion of the population, but not the entire country.

In that vein, I want to talk a bit about the Toronto-Quebec City corridor, which is perhaps the most well-served corridor in terms of transportation options in the country. I think Mr. D'Angelo mentioned increased commuter air traffic: Porter, Air Canada, WestJet, and the list goes on of air opportunities. People drive all the time. There's the current Via Rail line.

The question I have for the Via folks specifically is whether this is the best use of funding, to spend billions of dollars to give yet another option to the same region. Could that funding be better spent improving service on your main line, improving your stock, improving your ability to provide service to already existing rail lines?

I would like your comments on that.

[Mario Péloquin]

I'd like to thank the member for his question, Mr. Chair.

They are not incompatible. What I want is for Via Rail to provide truly reliable and diversified services that are good for the Canadian economy and the environment. That means providing as many services as possible to people across Canada.

Is one approach better than the other? I can't really say, but I believe that providing services to more people than before is better for Canadians.

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

My next question is for Mr. Leblanc.

You mentioned in your comments a caution that it's dangerous when costs are not given in a transparent fashion. We saw this with the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the federal government, the Liberals, bought for $5 billion or $6 billion. It was going to take $6 billion to build the project. We're now approaching $40 billion to build it.

When I asked questions of the Via HFR folks, they couldn't give me any number anymore. They have stopped talking about numbers at all when we're talking about building this project. How can the government build confidence that they are going to be able to build this in a responsible manner when they are not even giving any numbers anymore when they talk about the cost, which will be enormous?

[Michel Leblanc]

I won't comment on other projects, but with respect to this one, I would say that the numbers vary widely. As we are looking at two options for a given project, meaning high-frequency rail and high-speed rail, we need to understand all the financial factors, because they will have various repercussions on use. Earlier, the nine-hour trip from Toronto to Quebec City was mentioned. No one wants that, apart from tourists who might want to admire the landscape.

If we are really serious and want a modal transfer, the right solution is essential. To be able to discuss the right solution, it's important to know the actual costs. To know the actual costs, a number of assumptions have to be made about things like inflation, financing costs, and complexities on the ground. Only after that can the right decision be made.

The cost will be high, we agree, but we really have to know how high to make the right decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much Mr. Leblanc.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Next we'll go to Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to part the politics here and get down to the business of what we're trying to do here. I disagree with Mr. Strahl when he stated that this wouldn't galvanize the country like it did many, many years ago when we built the rail network. I believe, quite frankly, that if we had had an expanded vision back then—when the railways were built, when the St. Lawrence Seaway was built, and when other transportation-related infrastructure was built—the country would have been a lot further today because of those investments. Let's get to that.

When we look at trying to galvanize the country and bring communities and destinations together, it will offer more opportunities to travel and expand domestic travel to both desired locations and more diverse locations, places that we sometimes might not go to but we have access to now because of this new network. As well, it will give international visitors the opportunity to travel to destinations that are not easy to get to, especially by air. For example, it will complement Great Lakes tourism, the Great Lakes cruises that are happening now, with rail getting an intermodal and multimodal network. It will strengthen the multimodal movement of people, including local transit. It will act somewhat as a spine with arteries, again, utilizing other methods of transportation as well as local transit to bring people directly to their destinations. The more intermodal and multimodal, the more capacity there is.

I have a question for you, Mr. Péloquin, and I want to ask Mayor Lamarche the same question. What are your thoughts on those thoughts that I just brought forward in terms of capacity building, the business side of it and galvanizing communities across the nation?

[Mario Péloquin]

I talked a couple of times about my vision for Via Rail. When I'm talking about sustainability and doing more, I mean that in a way that is all-inclusive, so complete mobility is something that is very near and dear to my heart. Bringing a person to a station where they cannot go anywhere easily after that is not complete mobility. We have examples of that across Canada, and I'm happy to discuss that with CUTA and municipal transit agencies to see how we can improve the mobility on the first mile and the last mile, but going from a station to a university or school is very important to us.

Offering more services to more locations is also part of the vision, because when you look at the train, at the end of the day, it is the most accessible mode of transport, the most environmentally friendly and the best for the Canadian economy.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mayor Lamarche, I can tell you that I love Trois-Rivières. It's a gorgeous area. One of the things I admire about your community is that you had and continue to have the ability for multiple land use; everything comes together. You have industrial, tourism, residential, commercial and retail all coexisting in one area. It's absolutely gorgeous.

With that, what will this do for your community in terms of bringing people in to you but also within the entire region?