Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Joliette for his very informed speech on high speed trains.
I have no quarrel whatsoever with his enthusiasm for a technology that we are obviously considering. He alluded to the fact a report and a study on which $6 million is being spent by Ontario, Quebec and the federal government is to be released in June. Surely he wants to be true and honest with Canadian taxpayers by at least waiting for the report and until such time as government and Parliament can make a decision on it.
As I said, the governments of Quebec, Ontario and Canada have embarked on a major study to determine the viability of a high speed rail system in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor.
The present study covers a broad range of subjects that have been identified in previous works and is so designed to provide the most comprehensive evaluation of the potential of high speed rail in the corridor.
The three governments hired a consortium of consultants as managers of the project. The consortium is responsible to produce the benefits and the costs and the financial analysis for the overall project.
In addition the consortium is supervising and co-ordinating the following component studies, all very important to the decision making: data gathering, passenger and revenue forecasting, technology assessment, including the operating and strategy and costing.
The member alluded to one technology but he also should know that two technologies were under consideration. New technologies are being developed even as we speak.
The member talked about $7.5 billion. I do not know where he got those figures. The study has not been finished yet and some of his figures, unfortunately, are from previous reports or previous studies that have been done.
Also included are the industrial strategy and the economic benefits, institutional options and the legislative and labour issues, trends in intercity passenger transportation and government support, environmental aspects, impacts of the urban system and settlement patterns and the light freight and station concessions. This study builds on the findings and recommendations of the Ontario-Quebec task force report which identified several shortcomings in its work and the work of previous studies.
One of the main concerns in the task force report work was the inadequacy of the data that formed the basis for the passenger and revenue forecasts. To address this concern one-third of the total allocated budget of $6 million for the current study has been devoted to the gathering of data concerning travel patterns
and attitudes of the travelling public and to the forecasting of future usage.
This is the most critical aspect of the high speed proposal. Will people use it if in fact it is built? Previous studies of passenger travel in the corridor were conducted in a short timeframe and did not address the seasonal variances that may exist.
The quality and reliability of the base data have also been greatly improved over previous works. We have obtained 60,000 survey responses, three times more than had been obtained in the previous studies. This level of response was possible through the full co-operation of all the carriers in the corridor. Complete access to their passenger facilities and equipment was obtained to facilitate the conduct of the surveys. This is the first time researchers have been able to gain this unconditional co-operation. The survey results were also provided to the individual carriers to validate accuracy and reliability.
We have exerted a great deal of effort to improve the quality of the data to be used as the base for the study. This information is presently being incorporated by many of the consultants who are still in the midst of their work. It would be inappropriate and naturally premature to presume the outcome of their work.
In October 1989 the federal government established a royal commission on national passenger transportation with the objective of reporting on a national integrated, intercity passenger transportation system to meet the needs of Canadians in the 21st century. The commission reported its findings in 1992 and recommended with respect to high speed rail that governments only invest in high speed rail if the overall benefits exceed the costs and taxpayers do not have to pay an operating subsidy.
Furthermore, the commission recommended that there be public consultation on the implications of the government's decision and that the government establish a regulation under which high speed rail would operate, including safety and environmental regulations.
Clearly the royal commission has indicated through its recommendations that a hasty decision should not be promoted and that the full impacts of high speed rail are known prior to making a decision.
The Canadian debate on high speed rail has been ongoing for a long time and has intensified over the last few years with the release of several independent reports. These reports indicated that the governments will have to play a major role in any high speed project in Canada. The scope and the nature of the federal government's participation are yet to be determined or defined.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport addressed the question of the role of the federal government in high speed rail and reported its findings in March 1992. The Member should know that the theme of that whole report was a leap of faith.
The standing committee's recommendations are to a large extent addressed in the many component studies underway within the scope of the present study. Once again, these results will not be known for some time and the government should have all the information at hand prior to deciding on the future of high speed rail.
Canada's national rail passenger service has undergone many changes over the past few years. VIA Rail operations have been downsized in order to reduce subsidies. High speed rail is an option to improve the quality of service that is presently provided by VIA Rail.
A decision on the role of the federal government on high speed rail should not be made in isolation but would have to be addressed in the light of the broader context of the overall transportation needs in Canada. Canada's freight railways, CN and CP, have incurred substantial financial losses over the past 10 years. The railways are preparing proposals for the consolidation of their networks in Canada and some rail rationalization may be inevitable. This does not mean that valuable right of way which can be redeveloped for future purposes will be forgone. However, it would be beneficial to include this aspect in the decision on any high speed rail system.
As I stated earlier, the creation of jobs is a priority mandate of the federal government. A high speed rail project during the construction period will create significant employment. We do not argue with that. The economic impact study which has yet to be completed will quantify the levels that would be generated by a high speed rail project.
The choice of technology is another area that must be identified. As I have indicated, we are looking at more than one technology. A high speed rail project will not see the light of day without significant contributions from the private sector. The motion should not be moved forward without the benefits of the study.
We are prepared to further discuss this matter once the $6 million study, paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, is brought forward and presented to Parliament.