Transport Committee on Nov. 8th, 2023

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

What I'm hearing is that if we go with HFR and dedicated passenger railway, the on-time performance will also be much better. Is that accurate?

[Vincent Robitaille]

It is, indeed. All around the world, when you see the best service, this is the key. If the passenger railway controls the track, then it is able to run services in certain places that are precise to the second. That makes a world of difference for the passenger experience.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

As we've heard from many colleagues around the table in previous testimony and previous meetings, with large infrastructure projects such as this, it is probably going to be very hard to keep on budget. We have seen projects be delayed and go over budget.

What measures have been put in place to ensure that costs are properly managed over the course of the project? How certain are we that they'll try to keep as close as possible to the budget?

[Vincent Robitaille]

Many of the members of the HFR team had the honour of also working on the Samuel De Champlain Bridge before. It was a very successful project. We are very humbled by the difficulty of delivering major infrastructure projects and the need to learn from all the best things that are done around the world.

In the context of HFR, a number of things are being done, obviously, to make sure that costs are controlled and remain as low as possible. The first step was to create this new Crown corporation for HFR to have the expertise that is needed. It is essential to have the best experts on our side to manage the project over the long term.

The second is to use competition. We are having that robust competition right now to select a partner. Then that partner will be responsible for the design. When we look at all the construction that will need to happen on the corridor, it's not one project but a thousand small projects. For each one of them, there are different ways to shape them. They will be subject to their own competition. We will also have significant incentives built into the contract to ensure adherence to the budget and find the best ways to deliver the project.

Those are just a couple of examples, as you can imagine, built into the different aspects of our managing the project.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

In my previous role as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, I used to have these conversations with the minister, and I'd ask him why we would have HFR and not high-speed rail. He would say it was because of the cost.

Would you be able to educate us a little bit more as to why the cost is so much higher for high-speed rail than for HFR? Is it because of rail crossings? Is it because of expropriations? What types of things would increase the cost?

[Vincent Robitaille]

I'll start with some of the elements, and I'll invite my colleague Mr. Camiré to also provide some elements.

At a high level, once the train goes faster than 200 kilometres per hour, the difference is that you need a fully protected right of way. This means that the tracks are fenced. There cannot be at-grade crossings. That means viaducts over the road. It also means that the curves cannot be as great because the train is going to travel faster—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, I am going to cut you off there, although I really wanted to hear the answer to that question. Perhaps a colleague, another member of the committee, will cede some of their time to hear the rest of that answer.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval now as the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll pick up where my colleague left off.

At our last meeting, I asked Michel Leblanc why the figures we're being fed comparing the cost of high-speed rail to that of high frequency rail were 3 to 4 times higher here than elsewhere. We were talking about $65 billion versus $12 billion. Finally, I reviewed my cases and realized that the $65 million in costs communicated this summer for high-speed rail are no longer accurate. Now it would cost $80 billion.

Can you tell me how you arrived at those figures? It's very hard for us to make an assessment, but it would be interesting to know how you got those numbers.

[Vincent Robitaille]

If I may, I'd like to explain the difference in cost.

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

I would rather you answer my question, because I really don't have much time.

[Vincent Robitaille]

Perfect.

The comparative analysis that was done considered the average cost to build high-speed rail elsewhere in the world and adapt everything to the Canadian system. It is therefore based on high-level studies.

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

Could you send the committee the documents on which you based the figures? At the last committee meeting, I talked about the cost of a project carried out in Spain, and the difference was absolutely incomparable. We'd be very grateful if you could send us the data so we can understand how you got those numbers.

[Vincent Robitaille]

As long as the information doesn't compromise the competitive process, we'll be able to send you the data.

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

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to introduce a motion on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

In fact, I'd like to introduce two motions with essentially the same content.

Here is the first one:

That Transport Canada provide the Committee with all documents relating to the cost estimate for the TGF project and for a possible project allowing high-speed trains to run, free of any redactions; that these documents be sent to the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, no later than November 24, 2023.

The second one is as follows:

That VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc. produce to the Committee all documents relating to the cost estimate for the TGF project and for a possible project allowing the circulation of high-speed trains, free of any redactions; that these documents be sent to the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, no later than November 24, 2023.

As you can see, the motions have similar wording. The only difference is that the first is for Transport Canada and the second is for VIA HFR.

Our society needs to have an informed debate and, to do that, we need to know the comparative figures between the cost of high-speed rail and that of high frequency rail. Furthermore, we need to know whether the data currently circulating is reliable. So we need this information.

I have the motions in both official languages. I can send them to the clerk and the committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

If it's okay with everyone, we'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes so we can get the motions distributed in both official languages.

I see agreement.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

We will now open the discussion on the two motions put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval. The first one is the Transport Canada motion and the second one is on Via HFR.

Does anybody want to go first?

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is one of the questions I was going to ask with respect to financing. It is always important in the process to get a financial plan in place, taking the project into consideration, but what I'm also interested in is an integrated capital transportation plan based on a transportation logistics strategy. It goes bigger than that. Yes, we're going to talk about HFR, but we're also going to talk about high-speed rail. I don't think it's either-or. Both can be accommodated, depending on the jurisdictions we're talking about and, of course, the infrastructure that goes along with that.

I understand and appreciate the motion, in that respect. However, as we move along, I think what will happen is—no pun intended—it will become hub and spoke. You're also going to talk about the costs attributed to the residual parts of this plan. What is it going to cost marine, for example, with the cruise shipping? What's it going to cost the road, with the arterials? What's it going to cost municipalities, with the crossings? The list goes on. We're going to have a lot of discussion like that as this project gets under way.

The only concern I have with this motion is about the size of the project. It's no different from the Gordie Howe bridge or when the St. Lawrence Seaway was built 60 years ago. This is a big project. This is one of the biggest—if not the biggest—transportation-related projects in over 60 years. It's very exciting, by the way. I don't want to get into that now. I'll get into that when I get my turn for a question.

My concern is twofold.

First, it's one thing to ask Transport Canada to provide the committee with all the documents. That's you. That's us. That's fine. However, it's a bit more challenging to ask Via Rail for those documents. Via Rail is a private corporation, albeit at arm's length. It's still private and, quite frankly, in my opinion, they don't have to do that. It doesn't matter what this motion says. That's one thing. I'm just trying to be realistic.

I'll let others speak before I put this amendment forward, but I would suggest this for the motion, Mr. Chair, first off: that with respect to Via Rail, after “That”, we put “we request”. That's point one.

Point two is about redactions. None of us like redactions, and I include ourselves on this side of the horseshoe. However, I go back to my earlier comments with respect to the size of the project and those who will be involved in this project. It's a big project with a lot of people involved. Frankly, the only concern is proprietary. For proprietary considerations, there may have to be redactions based on the confidentiality of whatever they may be proposing for the actual project itself. It's not for us to impede on the proprietary rights of the partners who may be part of this project. It may in fact be difficult to ask for no redactions in those instances.

Other than that, I have no concerns. I want to hear others speak, because I might then have more concerns.

At this point in time, I'll leave it at that. I'll pass it on to my colleagues for their comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I see Ms. Koutrakis and Mr. Iacono have their hands up. I will then go to Dr. Lewis. Then we'll see where we go from there.

Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Similar to my colleague's objections, my biggest concern is over “free of any redactions”. I think we need to be very careful and not set precedents when we're putting out motions such as these for very important, large projects—that we protect information that needs to be protected. I don't think any one of us wants to ask for something that may have unintended consequences, especially on such a large project.

Therefore, for me, as well, the subject matter is not an issue. It's the “free of any redactions” regarding documents when we're presenting this kind of motion to the committee—not only to our committee but also to any committee. We've seen this time and again. Motions are dropped at various committees and this becomes an issue.

We've been working so well at this committee, very collegially. We seem to find compromise. We agree where we can agree, and we don't agree when we don't agree, but we always end up in a very sweet spot. I would hate to see something as important as this become a contentious matter that delays the very important work we're doing here in the transport committee.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Is it a point of order, Mr. Bachrach?

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

No, it's just to get on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Perfect. Yes, I will add you on.

Next we have Mr. Iacono, followed by Dr. Lewis, Mr. Strahl and Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Iacono, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel like we're going on a fishing expedition, asking Via Rail and Transport Canada for documents, but we're being redundant here. I don't think Via Rail would have all the documents; rather, Transport Canada would have more documents.

However, what we have forgotten here is that this project is still at the preliminary stage. We know half of the partners. We don't know the other half of the partners—the other half still has to be selected—so I don't think it would be fair or appropriate that documents be shared when we still don't know who the official other half of the partnership will be. I think they would be sharing confidential information, which would tamper with the selection process of the chosen company that will be partnered with Via HFR.

I think it's a bit too open. We're going on a fishing expedition here. Divulging this kind of information would be unfair to the selection process because, indeed, the information that is divulged in this committee is public.