Transport Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

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

Thank you.

My next question may seem repetitive to you, but it's a little different.

What criteria do you think should be considered in determining the location of stations within the cities chosen to host the future high‑frequency or high‑speed rail?

[Karl Blackburn]

Now we're getting into the details of the implementation of the project. The good news is that we have a new Crown corporation, a new board of directors and new leadership. They have everything they need to properly assess the various options on the table. Obviously, cost is a criterion. Efficiency is another. Travel time is a third.

I think this new Crown corporation, headed by a new CEO who has free rein when it comes to the government's objectives, should have the capacity to come up with more precise answers than anyone else about certain criteria or indicators that we unfortunately don't have in the current context.

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

What are the advantages of high‑speed rail over high‑frequency rail?

[Karl Blackburn]

The main difference lies in the speed of travel. Simulations have shown that the high‑speed train would deliver substantial gains in this respect. If we want to encourage greater use of the train, the gains in efficiency and speed for consumers must be worthwhile. Otherwise, they won't be encouraged to use those services, and we won't be able to force them to do so.

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

So you think that what is most important is to focus on the speed of the rail service, not on ridership or train use. It seems to me, though, that high‑frequency rail would be more available and a little closer to cities and communities, whereas high‑speed rail would be a little further away.

[Karl Blackburn]

It's important to keep in mind that one isn't necessarily opposed to the other. However, we can see that high‑speed rail offers significant travel time gains over high‑frequency rail.

Earlier, someone compared the time it takes to travel by train and by car between their riding and Toronto or Ottawa. Personally, if I want to take the Roberval train to Montreal, it will take me 10 hours by train, but only four and a half hours by car. So you'll understand that, in my case, my behaviour wouldn't be changed by this investment because there would be no gain. That's what you have to consider if you want to maximize the use of the train: the speed of travel.

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

If we had a high‑speed train, the station would be in Montreal. Everyone who lives in the north, like me, would then have to travel to downtown Montreal to take the train. However, if we had a high‑frequency train, there would be a station in Laval that would serve the entire northern region.

As a final question, what are the challenges in implementing a high‑speed train between Toronto and Quebec City?

[Karl Blackburn]

What kind of difficulties are you talking about: financial, political or infrastructure?

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

I'll let you decide.

[Karl Blackburn]

First of all, the example you just gave concerning your riding clearly shows the major political problems that this could pose.

Then, of course, there's the cost risk. You have to choose a project that will both maximize the return on the financial investment and bring about real changes in user behaviour. That's where the exercise is extremely important. I dare say it's one of the main challenges.

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

I just want to tell you that there are four of us in Laval and that I'm the only one who takes the train, because the station is too far for my three colleagues.

[Karl Blackburn]

However, in Laval, you have other important community travel services that promote greater use of public transit.

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

Thank you, Mr. Blackburn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Iacono.

Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this point I would like to move my motion to study tourism and transport, which was circulated and put on notice on December 12, 2023, in both official languages, and I will read it into the record if I may:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study examining the role of the transportation sector in the support and growth of the tourism industry in Canada, examining the challenges and opportunities that the transportation sector presents to tourism; that the committee invite witnesses with specific knowledge about the transportation sectors and the tourism sectors across the country; that the committee allocate a minimum of five meetings to this study; that the committee report its findings and actionable recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

Would you like to speak to the motion?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I would, very briefly. Thank you.

As we all know, Mr. Chair, tourism is an integral part of the Canadian economy. It generates benefits across the country in rural and remote areas, indigenous communities and the north. Most critically, I wanted to share some of the numbers that make this study, I think, all the more important

There are 623,000 jobs in Canada—and these are 2022 numbers—directly attributable to tourism.

There are 232,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small and mid-sized enterprises, that are directly supported by the visitor economy, and this is as of June 2023.

Eighteen per cent of the transportation industry was supported by tourism jobs. In Q3 of 2023, tourism contributed $6.9 billion in additional GDP to Canada's transportation sector.

We all know that transportation is always an integral and key part of the tourist experience, but the lack of access—and we heard this time and time again during various testimony that we've heard so far at the committee—and reduced transfer connectivity remains an issue for tourism operators,

For all of those reasons, Mr. Chair, I think this is an important study to be placed in the queue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

Before we dive into debate—because I see that Mr. Muys has his hand up—could I have unanimous consent that the witnesses be excused with our gratitude for their testimony today?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I see unanimous consent.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their feedback.

We wish you a wonderful rest of your day. You can now log off or leave the room if you're here in person.

Thank you.

Mr. Muys, I now turn the floor over to you.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

I think we had the discussion at a previous meeting that there's the rotation of studies, and I like this study for the statistics that Ms. Koutrakis just indicated. Was it 600,000 jobs and 233,000 businesses?

Of course, there's also the transportation aspect, which I was not aware of—the 18% and the $6.9 billion.

I have two suggestions. One is a bit more of a.... You know, we get into wordsmithing, and we usually depend on Mr. Bachrach for that. Rather than saying a “minimum of five meetings”, we could say “up to five meetings”. Then, given the volume of GDP that was mentioned, I think the study would actually benefit from the inclusion of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Tourism on the list of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

I'll turn it over to Ms. Koutrakis.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I'm amenable to those changes. That sounds fair to me. I think the importance is to do this study, because it is a very important one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis and Mr. Muys.

I don't see anybody else on the speaking list, so perhaps we'll go to a vote.

All those in favour of adopting the motion, as amended by Mr. Muys....

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

Are we going to vote on the amendment first?