GATINEAU
NOVEMBER 3, 2009


Good afternoon.  Bonjour. 
Thank you for your introduction and for this opportunity to join you for the North American High Speed Rail Summit.  I want to thank Cliff Mackay and the Railway Association of Canada for organizing this event. 

To our guests from the United States and from Europe, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Canada and to Ottawa-Gatineau.

My colleague, John Baird, Minister of Transport and Communities, has asked me to bring his greetings to this Summit. 

Transport Canada has been studying high-speed rail closely, as has the parliamentary committee on which I sit.  We are all taking a keen interest in what is being discussed here over these two days.

In fact, Cliff made a presentation to this parliamentary committee last spring, along with Paul Langan of High Speed Rail Canada.

They were among 25 witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in our study of high-speed rail in Canada.  Other witnesses ranged from Bombardier to TransLink, and from the Canadian Airports Council to VIA Rail. 

Our Committee then travelled to Washington and New York City where we learned more about the American perspective on high-speed rail and higher speed rail.
We heard about the need to coordinate rail systems, and coordinate high-speed rail with other modes. About the need for transportation efficiency; About new technologies, and the economic boost that the construction of dedicated lines might provide; About the environmental advantages of rail; About various financing options. 

You have covered similar ground yesterday and today in the roster of experts from both Canada and the United States who have spoken at this Summit. There’s a great deal of support in this room for high speed rail.  And in certain regions of Canada, there’s certainly keen interest.

For example, my home province of Alberta commissioned a study on a high-speed corridor between Calgary and Edmonton.  Luke Ouellet, the Alberta Transport Minister has not made a decision, but he called the report a good first step. In Ontario, Premier McGuinty has received one report that recommends a high-speed system in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region.

The Government of Canada is taking a serious look at high-speed rail.  We have joined with the governments of Ontario and Quebec to fund a $3-million update of the study that  was conducted some 15 years ago.  The results are expected in the new year.

Everyone is looking forward to the updated study’s results. Much has changed since 1995 when that last comprehensive study on high-speed rail in the Quebec-Windsor corridor was completed.  Some factors remain the same.

The 1995 study looked at routing options and made detailed traffic forecasts.  It looked at construction costs based on available technologies.  It examined how a high-speed rail system would have to operate, and the subsidies that would be required to operate it.

And this earlier study looked at the impacts that high-speed rail would have on cities, on the environment, and on other modes, as well as the benefits it might bring to society and the economy. It was a thorough report. It tallied up the cost of building a high-speed rail corridor between Quebec City and Windsor.
The bottom line at that time: estimated that it would cost $18 billion to construct a high speed system in the corridor. 

And as you may remember, in 1995, governments were cutting spending to control Canada’s debt, and the project was not considered feasible.
No doubt the new study will likely identify a much higher price tag for building high-speed rail in the corridor today.  And as a Member of Parliament, and as a government, we will want to look very carefully at the cost and whether this will be a good way to spend taxpayers’ money.

But I also know that many factors have changed since 1995.  The population has grown, especially in the Greater Toronto Area and the Golden Horseshoe. Technology has changed.  More technologies have now been tested in climatic conditions more similar to our Canadian winters.  And there is a broader range of technology available today. 

This could mean more competition among suppliers that would help cut costs.

Ridership patterns also seemed to have evolved. We will be very interested to see the conclusions of the study update and assess the modal choices people are willing to make.

Also, the importance of the environment in public policy decisions is more important today than it was 15 years ago.  And at a time when the manufacturing sector has been hit hard by the restructuring of the auto sector, the industrial benefits today may well be much higher in the list of priorities.

Options for financing have changed over the past 15 years.  Few policy makers had heard of public-private partnerships in 1995—let alone had experience with them.  ‘P3s’ are viable options now.  We will want to look at how both the risks and the rewards of such a capital-intensive project could be shared with the private sector.

But there are things that have not changed in those 15 years.  The distance between points remains a constant.  Quebec to Windsor is still 2,000 kilometers and it would be highly unusual to run high speed rail over such a long distance.  Remember that the corridors contemplated by the U.S. administration run in the 800 kilometer range.
Another factor that has not changed is the “not in my back yard” syndrome.  Just look at the difficulties CN encountered when it acquired an alternative route through Chicago. 

Imagine the mitigation measures it would take to build a new rail corridor across 2,000 kilometers.  And many of those kilometers run through the most densely populated areas of Canada.

There are many factors at play.  You have been discussing them here, the Standing Committee is having a look at them, and they will be examined very carefully in the feasibility study Canada has sponsored with Quebec and Ontario. 

Transport Canada is looking forward to reviewing the results of the study.  Our Committee is preparing its recommendations based upon the testimony of the witnesses who gave us their time and expertise.  And meetings such as this—bringing together so many experts from Canada, the United States, and Europe—will help better understand the issues, benefits, and the challenges related to high speed rail.

 Entretemps, il est bien clair que ce gouvernement favorise au plus haut point le transport ferroviaire voyageur. 

In 2007, one of the early actions of Prime Minister Harper’s government was the announcement of $516 million in capital funding over five years to help VIA Rail provide faster, cleaner, more frequent, and more reliable passenger service.

A year later in Budget 2008, we doubled the Capital Cost Allowance rate.  This helped the entire business community, but specifically for the railways it meant they could invest to improve their locomotive fleet.

And this year, as part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we committed another $407 million to VIA, bringing the total commitment in capital funding to $923 million. 

Part of that investment—some $300 million—will be invested to build a third track along parts of the line from Montreal to Toronto.  VIA will be able to increase the number of trains operated, increase their speeds, and improve on-time performance.
 Ce gouvernement appuie VIA.  Il appuie le transport ferroviaire voyageur.

Each year, collisions and trespassing incidents still occur at some of the 55,000 public, private and pedestrian highway-railway crossings.  In fact, over half of the railway related deaths and injuries occur at these crossings. 

Canada has one of the safest rail systems in the world.  But more can be done where roadways and tracks meet.

Funded under Canada’s Railway Safety Act, the Grade Crossing Improvement Program is an important initiative administered by Transport Canada. 
Over five years, the program will provide some $28 million to enhance safety at grade crossings.  As some of you will recall, last May we announced investments totaling $7.1 million to improve grade crossings throughout the country. 

 Je suis heureux d’annoncer aujourd’hui un investissement additionnel de 3,8 millions de dollars dans 35 projets prioritaires dans cinq provinces du Canada.
The projects range in magnitude and complexity.  Some are simple electronic improvements in existing systems.  Other projects involve the installation of full signal systems. 

We’re making these investments to help improve the safety of railways and highways over the long term.  In the short-term, as with all of our projects under Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we also create jobs in communities and support the economy.

And keeping the economy moving has been this government’s goal since the downturn began.  It has not been an easy road, but Canadians have responded.  In our Economic Action Plan introduced in Budget 2009, we provided tax relief to businesses, reduced the tax burden on Canadians, improved Employment Insurance, and introduced a number of other measures to boost consumer confidence.

For example, our Government collaborated with provincial and municipal partners to invest in the largest infrastructure program since the second world war. 
At the end of September when Prime Minister Harper reported on the government’s actions to date, he noted that 90 percent of our stimulus funding for this fiscal year has now been committed to more than 7,500 projects which will create thousands of new jobs. 

Overall, our plan is helping to create or maintain an estimated 220,000 Canadian jobs by the end of 2010. 

While our economy is showing signs of progress, we must remain cautious because we’re not out of the woods just yet.  We still have work to do.  But we’re working to ensure Canada can emerge stronger than ever from this global economic downturn.

Ladies and gentlemen, how will Canada look when we emerge from the recession? 

How will we look 15 years from now, when the current economic troubles are a distant memory?

Will we have high-speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec corridor?  In the Calgary-Edmonton corridor?  What impact would that have on transportation patterns?  What impact on air quality?  What impact on the national and provincial debt?

These are interesting discussions.  You continue to make your case forcefully for your vision of that future. 

The Government of Canada is listening.  

Thank you.  
Merci.