THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 2, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:00 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, please take a moment to review the cards placed on the tables in the committee room to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for preventing incidents related to sound feedback.
[English]
Please keep your earphones away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphones. Their activation and deactivation will be controlled by the console operator.
Finally, avoid handling your earphones when the microphone is activated. Earphones must remain in your ears or placed on the sticker provided for this purpose at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
My name is Larry Smith. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I ask that our senators introduce themselves.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Mohamed: Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: We are meeting today to begin our study of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, Budget 2025 implementation act, No. 1.
Today, we will hear from officials from Transport Canada, specifically on Division 1, which creates the high-speed rail network act, and Division 29, which amends the Canada Transportation Act.
I would like to introduce Melanie Vanstone, Director General, Multimodal and Road Safety Programs, Transport Canada, who will speak to us about Division 29; and Vincent Robitaille, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects, Transport Canada, who will speak to us about Division 1. We also have François Camiré, Director General, Technical, Engineering and Impact Assessment, High-Speed Rail, Transport Canada. Mr. Robitaille and Mr. Camiré will speak to us about Division 1.
Ms. Vanstone, Mr. Robitaille and Mr. Camiré are accompanied by a number of other officials from Transport Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada and the Department of Justice Canada. They are here to assist in answering any technical questions on particular divisions. Should any of these officials be called to the table to answer questions, please state your name and title before you begin speaking.
Thank you all for joining us today. Witnesses will be providing opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I invite Ms. Vanstone to give her opening remarks.
Melanie Vanstone, Director General, Multimodal and Road Safety Programs, Transport Canada: Good morning. Before I proceed, I want to recognize that I’m joining you today on the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. We honour the Algonquin people’s enduring relationship with these lands and express our gratitude for their stewardship.
I appreciate the opportunity to come and discuss the proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act included within Bill C-15, Budget 2025 implementation act, No. 1.
These amendments would strengthen Canada’s alignment with international standards and obligations across all modes of transportation. They would authorize the Minister of Transport to issue interim orders for up to three years under any provision of an act that they administer or enforce, specifically to ensure compliance with international standards or obligations.
This represents a meaningful modernization of the transportation legislative framework. It provides a legal mechanism to adopt trusted international standards and implement international commitments promptly, while longer-term regulatory amendments are developed through the existing Governor-in-Council process.
Interim orders would only be used when determined to be in the public interest. The three-year maximum would provide sufficient time to put a permanent requirement in place, while providing affected stakeholders with increased predictability and signalling to industry that changes are in progress.
Overall, the authority would help Canada meet deadlines for implementing international commitments. For example, Transport Canada currently undertakes a recurrent two-year cycle to harmonize the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations with international standards and codes such as the UN Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
As well, interim orders could temporarily adjust requirements related to the Arctic Shipping Safety and Pollution Prevention Regulations to implement amendments to International Maritime Organization conventions. In both examples, the department could use the proposed authority to expedite international alignment while Governor-in-Council regulations are being pursued.
Ultimately, the proposed amendments would better support Canadian businesses and boost Canada’s economic growth by aligning Transport Canada’s regulatory framework with international expectations and requirements.
For Canadian businesses, the proposed amendments would reduce burdens caused by delays in harmonizing with dynamic changes to international practices, protect their ability to be internationally competitive and enable faster adoption of emerging technologies by leveraging established global standards and practices.
This would also bolster government efficiency in two ways. It would enable timely alignment with key or new trading partners, and it would increase regulatory efficiency through alignment with standards developed in partnership with international organizations or standards development organizations.
The proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act would come into force upon Royal Assent of the budget implementation act, or BIA, 2025.
I’d be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Vanstone.
Vincent Robitaille, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects, Transport Canada: Thank you for your invitation to appear before you today. With me is François Camiré, Director General, Technical, Engineering and Impact Assessment, High‑Speed Rail.
High-speed rail, or HSR, is one of my main areas of responsibility.
Today, I would like to provide you with an overview of the High-Speed Rail Initiative and describe why the legislative measures proposed in the budget implementation act are critical for HSR’s timely implementation.
In Part 5, Division 1 of the BIA 2025, Canada brings forward legislative measures through the high-speed rail network act that are necessary to enable efficient and timely delivery of the HSR Initiative. The measures in the HSR network act are considered preconditions to the successful implementation of the initiative as they are essential to increase efficiencies and rise to the land acquisition challenge posed by the size and scale of the HSR Initiative.
[Translation]
By connecting communities from Quebec City to Toronto, this transformative infrastructure investment will offer faster, more reliable and more sustainable travel for Canadians in this corridor. By cutting travel time in half, HSR brings Canadians together: You would be able to get on the train in Ottawa and arrive in Toronto a few hours later, or in Montreal in less than an hour. Imagine what that means for our economy and for the public and our families and friends.
High-speed rail will increase passenger trips in the corridor to at least 17 million by 2059; it will double the number of train departures, with at least 12 departures a day between the major cities; it will significantly improve reliability to ensure that trains are on time; and it will make an affordable and accessible service more available, providing an incentive for users to adopt the new service.
[English]
This initiative will not only accommodate the growing demand for travel but also turbocharge our economy, create thousands of good-paying jobs and deliver to Canadians a transportation system that is fit for a major economy. Indeed, the HSR Initiative will boost GDP by $35 billion annually, create over 51,000 jobs and unlock enhanced productivity for generations of Canadians. It also provides opportunities to increase the housing supply by up to 63,000 units. In short, HSR will transform the way Canadians live, work and travel.
This initiative will deliver transformational benefits for Canadian industry and businesses. Canadian suppliers and inputs will be prioritized and local content will be required. The HSR Initiative will strengthen domestic supply chains, support Canadian jobs and ensure that the economic ripple effects of this nation-building project are felt across the country.
As an example, the initiative will require more than 4,000 kilometres of steel rails, along with massive quantities of structural beams and other core materials. In addition, significant amounts of aluminum, copper, concrete, ballast and rolling stock units will be needed, materials we are committed to sourcing from Canadian industries wherever possible.
[Translation]
In addition to materials, the project will create thousands of engineering, construction, manufacturing, operations and maintenance jobs, and so will support Canadian workers and strengthen our national workforce.
HSR is crucial for Canada’s long-term prosperity and for reducing carbon emissions. Demographic and economic growth in Ontario and Quebec will lead to increased demand for all modes of transportation, including passenger trains.
We know that the route developed by Alto, the new Crown corporation that has been created for the project, will require approximately 1,000 kilometres of new track reserved for passengers, potentially affecting more than 40 indigenous communities and 120 municipalities and calling for the acquisition of thousands of parcels of land.
[English]
The HSR network act is based on lessons learned from other exceptionally large infrastructure projects around the world and in Canada. The legislative measures are necessary to support timely and efficient implementation of the initiative.
There are seven proposed legislative measures.
The first is to declare the high-speed railway line to be for the general advantage of Canada. This measure clarifies that the HSR railway line will be under federal jurisdiction even where some segments to be constructed would be within one province only. Canada will continue to work closely with provincial governments and their regulatory authorities to ensure alignment, cooperation and respect for provincial roles.
The second is to require that each segment be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. This measure ensures that each segment that forms the future high-speed rail network will be subject to the Impact Assessment Act no matter how much new right-of-way it has.
The third measure is to remove the need for a separate process under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act. This measure proposes to reduce duplication by removing the need for a separate process under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act in which the Canadian Transportation Agency approves the location of a railway line. The section 98 consultations would be addressed through flexibilities in the impact assessment process, with a one-window approach for robust consideration of concerns and interests.
The fourth is to stipulate that land can be subject to a notice of prohibition on work, acquired or expropriated during the impact assessment process. This allows land acquisition to be initiated without waiting for the impact assessment process to be completed. However, construction on these lands would not begin until the impact assessment process is complete.
[Translation]
The fifth measure is to support the progress of the acquisition and expropriation of the land required for the HSR initiative. It is important to understand that the geometric requirements of a high-speed train impose strict limits on allowable curvature, leaving only a narrow range of viable alignments for the project; de facto, this requires a land acquisition regime tailored to high‑speed rail.
The bill also introduces a temporary notice of prohibition on work, which prevents major changes or new developments on land that might be necessary in order to carry out the project. However, regular maintenance and normal use of the land could continue.
To reduce the need for expropriation, the bill allows Alto, the new Crown corporation created for the project, to purchase land proactively. That includes a right of first refusal if an owner decides to sell.
It is also important to note that all landowners affected will continue to be entitled to the same compensation and indemnification as is provided under the present system.
The sixth measure is to provide that indigenous knowledge provided in confidence in relation to the project will be treated as confidential; this will ensure that it is protected against disclosure under the Access to Information Act.
The seventh and final measure is to ensure that the relevant parts of the Official Languages Act apply to the private partners and to any entity that operates the HSR service. Applying the Official Languages Act guarantees that the public will have access to the service in both official languages, for example, and that employees will be able to work in the language of their choice.
[English]
In conclusion, these legislative measures are essential to the timely and efficient delivery of the High-Speed Rail Initiative. The initiative will connect economic hubs, boost tourism, cut travel times in half and spur affordable housing development across Quebec and Ontario. This legislation will allow our country to realize the enormous economic benefits associated with this initiative.
Thank you for inviting me to speak about the HSR Initiative. I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robitaille.
We will now move on to questions from senators.
[English]
I would like to advise senators that you have approximately five minutes for each round of questioning. We will have a second round if time permits. Should you wish to ask a question of our witnesses, please alert our clerk, who will add your name to the list of questioners. I invite our deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. We have had many proposals in the past for high-speed rail in this corridor. My first question is this: Has this one advanced further than any of the other ones in the past?
My second question is this: Do you have the exact route figured out yet? Just drilling down a little further, have you actually identified the properties that you will need to expropriate or for the company to purchase, as you just mentioned? How do you engage the owners in this process? Has that actually begun?
That’s my first set of questions. If I have time, I have another set. They are all about high-speed rail. It’s a very exciting project. I live in Toronto and travel to Peterborough, as well as Ottawa and Montreal, so I’m looking forward to it if I’m still alive then.
Mr. Robitaille: Thank you. Yes, this initiative for high-speed rail has advanced more than it ever has. In February 2025, the former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced the selection of a private developing partner to advance the project. A consortium called Cadence that is composed of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as well as the Société national des chemins de fer of France. It’s one of the best consortiums in the world we could have. At the moment, the government has also announced $4 billion to advance the co-development of the project.
What is the co-development? It’s the detailed design of precisely how the new tracks will be built and where they will go. I’ll speak about your questions around the route, but it is a four-year process to finalize a design, obtain the regulatory approvals and secure the land that will be necessary for the project.
The government has also created a new Crown corporation to lead the project, which I think you have invited to appear before this committee next week. The Crown corporation is called Alto, so I would say that, yes, we have made more progress than we made in a generation, and we have serious partners and an expert team to deliver the project.
For the exact route, the government has already announced the minimum cities that need to be connected. It’s going to be Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Laval, Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City. Right now, Alto, the Crown corporation, and Cadence, the private partner, are performing a detailed analysis of the potential route. They’re planning to start engaging with the different communities in the coming months to come up with the preferred alignment for the project.
This work is advancing very well. And through that process, specific properties will be identified. On the engagement of owners — again, I would invite you to ask questions to Alto when they come to this committee, but at a high level, they will first go into the communities, explain the project, understand the concerns and elements that are important for each community to help come to a preferred alignment for the project.
Once that is the case, they will start to engage with the various owners in due course. That would be starting at a high level, understanding the needs of the communities, then slowly narrowing down to the precise properties necessary for the project.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: My apologies; I was a little late. You may have covered my question in your introduction, but I’ll ask it anyway.
In the legislation, under “Impact Assessments,” “Designated project,” subclause 6(1), it says:
The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of the high-speed rail network do not constitute a designated project, as defined in section 2 of the Impact Assessment Act, for the purposes of that Act.
I heard you say in your remarks that each section will be examined under the Impact Assessment Act. Can you tell us what this means? Doesn’t a designated project mean it is an impact assessment project?
Mr. Robitaille: Thanks for the question and for allowing me to provide clarity around this. The way we need to write it into the legislation — we need it to be written because it can cause confusion. What we’re trying to do is very clear.
We have looked at many high-speed rail projects around the world. Nobody builds these all at once. Other countries start with segments between major city pairs. Imagine Ottawa and Toronto or Ottawa and Montreal. So you would start with one major city pair, then build upon that progressively.
The legislative change proposed here is to clarify that each of those segments will be subject to an impact assessment — that cumulatively, the whole network will be subject to it, segment by segment. The way it’s drafted, the whole network will not be subject to an Impact Assessment Act, but each of the segments will be. That’s the intent there. Obviously, as we go through, there will be consideration of the cumulative impact of the network. Frankly, the cumulative impact tends to be positive, because as a network grows — for example, if a segment is Toronto to Ottawa, and then the next one is Ottawa to Montreal — when you have the two segments built, then you have travellers from Toronto to Montreal and will increase ridership and lower greenhouse gas emissions further. You will increase the economic benefits.
That is all to say that the cumulative impact of the network will also be considered. But the impact assessment will be conducted segment by segment.
Senator Wilson: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am interested in the section where you say that the Canadian Transportation Agency will no longer be responsible for giving approvals, which would instead fall to the cabinet, as I understand it.
So obviously, looking in from the outside, and I am not an expert, the entire idea of having a transportation agency is to have a degree of independence in the approval process with a degree of distance from the government. As we know, the Carney government wants this train. I am not saying I am against it at all, but is there not a danger that cabinet will close its eyes and say, “Yes, it’s terrific, let’s get going on it right away”? It seems to me that the purpose of having this whole idea of having a transportation agency is precisely so there is distance between the decision and the government.
Mr. Robitaille: Thank you for your question. It is a very important question and I hope I can shed a bit of light on the government’s intentions.
Each of the segments of the project will be subject to an impact assessment. This has been discussed in relation to the question. The things that will be studied in the impact assessment are broadly the same as in the case of approval under section 98 of the Transportation Act.
The idea is to eliminate the duplication in studying the same things twice, but there will be an independent assessment done as part of the project. If there are things that do not overlap, the ones that would be under the sole jurisdiction of the Transportation Agency will be considered in the impact assessment and the agency will be involved in the process. The idea is to eliminate duplication in the regulatory process and have one regulator for a decision on the project.
The reference you have in your document is important because, ultimately, approval under section 98 of the Transportation Act calls for determining whether the location of the new line is reasonable. In that case, cabinet or the government may make that decision having regard to the impact assessment that has been done.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Since are referring to that yourself, I want to come back to the much discussed segment-by-segment impact assessments. Here again, the logic is the issue: You are doing one segment after another, and if all of a sudden, in the middle of the assessment, there is a region or there are indigenous or non-indigenous communities that really believe this is a major disruption, will you have a hole in your rail line?
Mr. Robitaille: I will just clarify one thing: This will be done segment by segment. It is not necessary that they be 100% in sequence. Construction of a second segment might start before the first is completed, but the regulatory approvals will be done one at a time.
To answer your question, the lines will not go through indigenous reserves and the indigenous peoples have been involved for three years now and have a good understanding of the issues that might arise in certain places in relation to construction of the line.
The idea is to demonstrate reasonable prudence before starting the project in its entirety, but we are not particularly worried about a situation arising where a portion of the route could not be built.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am glad to see your optimism.
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Robitaille.
First, I have to say I applaud this project; obviously, since I am from the Acadian Peninsula and I take the train as a passenger from Bathurst to Montreal, I can’t say I am an expert in high‑speed trains, you will understand.
You referred to the Official Languages Act and that is what I want to ask about. You stated that the new High-Speed Rail Network Act includes language obligations under the Official Languages Act for the entities with which Alto enters into agreements about the operations or maintenance of the HSR network. The act also includes language obligations for the entities that operate passenger rail services, specifically services provided by VIA Rail, between Quebec City and Windsor on the day on which section 1 of the High-Speed Rail Network Act comes into force.
In the document we received, you give the example of Air Canada. Can you give us concrete examples of entities that might potentially be subject to these obligations? How can compliance with the Official Languages Act be ensured?
I say this because what we understand, generally, is that the public and travellers can obviously file complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages. The onus is again on members of the public. How are you going to ensure compliance and make sure that a responsibility does not come down simply to the fact that people can file a complaint?
Mr. Robitaille: On the first part of your question, what entity it will apply to, I referred in one of my first answers to the contract awarded to the Cadence consortium for developing the HSR network. They are the ones that will ultimately make a final proposal, after development, for building and operating the network for about 40 years. This is all still at the negotiations stage, but we are talking about a long period of time.
In this type of transaction, a company will be created, to be called an operation and maintenance company. It will be responsible for operations, drivers, maintenance employees and employees in stations and on board trains. The intention here is that the Official Languages Act will apply to this company in the same way as it applies to VIA Rail at present, so that Canadians are able to access the services to which they are entitled.
Given this, the action does no more or less than what is provided in the Official Languages Act. However, as I said, the service itself will be managed under a contract. In addition to the obligations relating to the act, to complaints and to the role of the commissioner, Canada will, for example, be able to impose more stringent requirements under the contract to ensure that the public are able to exercise the important right to receive service in the language of their choice.
Senator Cormier: What is the reasoning behind the requirement that an order-in-council be made?
Mr. Robitaille: It is a matter of timely implementation. There is no other issue. At present, VIA Rail operates the services in the corridor, so there is no need to do it. It will only need to be implemented in advance when the contracts are signed.
Senator Cormier: This timely implementation has not yet been defined?
Mr. Robitaille: It will be when the new entity is responsible for operations in the corridor.
Senator Cormier: If you need testimony during phase 2 for the Montreal-Bathurst segment —
Mr. Robitaille: We are proceeding by segment.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I’m wondering if you could explain the question of the declaratory power as it pertains to jurisdiction. In plain language, could you tell me what that means?
Mr. Robitaille: Normally, an interprovincial railway is subject to federal legislation and regulation, including the Impact Assessment Act. We are proceeding by segment, and if you look at the segment between Toronto and Ottawa, for example, it would be entirely in Ontario but is part of a national network that crosses provinces. The legislation aims to provide absolute clarity that it is federal jurisdiction that applies to the project.
That’s really the intent here.
Senator Quinn: So the project transits through two provinces, and a third jurisdiction is put aside so that the federal jurisdiction can provide the leadership when it comes to the legislation that applies.
Mr. Robitaille: Yes, especially for the environmental impact assessment process where the goal is to have one review for one project, it is to have that clarity.
Senator Quinn: So it creates greater clarity and certainty and provides leadership by the federal government.
Mr. Robitaille: Correct.
Senator Quinn: Okay.
Can you also talk a little bit about national interests? I think everybody agrees that this is going to be a project that will help in that major corridor where the population of Canada exists, but, as my colleague mentioned, we don’t all live in that major corridor. If it is in the national interest, then VIA Rail, that which remains, is also in the national interest, but my concern is this: Would it be fair to say that today’s train transportation system — whatever revenue is generated, is generated largely between Windsor and Quebec City? That’s the heavy-use part of VIA Rail. So the high-speed train, when it is established, is a separate entity — a separate organization, if you will — and it is going to have its profit centre, whatever that office is called. But what happens to the rest of VIA? Will it have to increase its dependency on federal subsidies, or will places like we have in Atlantic Canada experience further reductions in service? How will VIA continue to provide anything if its profit centre is now concentrated around high-speed rail? How does that tie back to national interests, which I don’t think have been clearly defined?
Mr. Robitaille: I will unpack your question into a few elements. I will start with the profitability and the impacts on VIA Rail, and then I will go back to national interests, if you will allow me.
First, it is important to remember that no part of the VIA network right now is profitable; all segments are subsidized. There is no cross-subsidization such that, for example, there is money being made between Windsor and Quebec City that helps pay for service in the rest of the country. I think the average subsidy in the corridor is $30 per trip, but it depends on how you calculate it. That is just general. So there is no such cross-subsidization.
The project will be a significant improvement of the network between Toronto and Quebec City but, really, between Windsor and Quebec City, overall. The new entity will become responsible for the full network, which is both the new high‑speed service and the existing ones. The existing communities will continue to be served.
We expect that this new network will now become profitable. It will actually be able to pay for its operations, the maintenance and probably some of the initial construction costs, although not all. That’s what we expect. So it will turn what is a service that loses money every year into something that is profitable.
Senator Quinn: Have you folks done a financial analysis that shows what the return on investment, or ROI, would be? When do you reach profitability? Is it in 1 year or 10 years? When does the profitability begin?
Mr. Robitaille: There is a lot of uncertainty about how quickly it will be ramping up and when every segment will come online, so I wouldn’t be able to speak precisely to the number of years, but it was fairly quick, actually.
Senator Quinn: Can you give me an order of magnitude in terms of “fairly quick”? In government terms, “fairly quick” may not be as quick as others.
Mr. Robitaille: That type of service would mean a massive transformation, and the transportation would have a lot more users.
That, in itself, will not change the situation for the service outside the corridor, for example, going to New Brunswick, which also requires a subsidy. If I recall correctly, in Budget 2024, there was an announcement and also funding provided to replace the fleet that also provides that service. That 70‑year‑old fleet will be replaced, and that’s an example of the commitment of the Government of Canada to continue those services across the country.
Senator Quinn: I would like to follow up and get more information on the financial analysis that has been done. You just said that the high-speed rail will also continue to provide the oversight and have responsibility for the entire system. I guess VIA Rail disappears and this takes over, but when does profitability occur? If you have to make all these reinvestments into the assets, there has to be a line that tells me when the reinvestments and the costs of the initiation of this project cross over into true profitability. That analysis must have been done by the financial folks who examined this project.
Mr. Robitaille: We will take this assignment back. Some analysis has been done, obviously, and part of the co‑development now is to put all of this information based on the precise service that will be built. There will be some updates. They were preliminary —
Senator Quinn: I will put it on the record that I’m asking for that analysis and that kind of forecasting. Do we have a feel? Will it happen in my lifetime, your lifetime or my grandkids’ lifetime? When is it going to happen? There should be that kind of analysis done on a major project like this. I have had to do it for major projects I’ve been involved in, and surely this project would be no different than that. I would like to be in round two, please.
Senator Simons: I have a quick question for Mr. Robitaille, and then I have some questions for Ms. Vanstone so she does not feel left out.
Mr. Robitaille, as I read this bill, I noticed it gives extraordinary powers of expropriation. The railways have always had pretty good powers of expropriation, but in this case, there is not even a requirement to negotiate with the property owners. Can you tell me why the government felt it needed to take that big of a step and what recourse there might be for property owners who don’t wish to be expropriated?
Mr. Robitaille: Thanks. It is a very important question. First, the proposed changes to the expropriation process are based on what has been done in Quebec and Ontario. Those are things like the Building Transit Faster Act from Ontario, and the law that applies to what at that time was called Réseau électrique métropolitain but now is Réseau express métropolitain, or REM. So it is inspired by those, and it really reflects the nature of high-speed rail.
The reason high-speed rail or high-speed trains can go fast is not so much about the technology. Yes, you need to have that, but, really, the tracks need to be straight. There are very big limits on the curvature. If you try to move the tracks by 100 metres somewhere, it can have an impact 20 kilometres away.
The technical challenge of deciding where the tracks will be is in choosing the best place — or the least bad place — to put them. But it is very difficult to adjust it for just one narrow piece of land. You need to choose the best outcome for everybody on the line. That’s the working premise.
So the proposed act includes three big measures, which I wouldn’t say are extraordinary powers but rather things that make the process clearer for everybody and more adapted to what needs to happen.
The first thing is to allow for objections to be raised, but instead of having hearings, for the process to be done in writing so that any landowner who has concerns can submit their objections, and then, through the process, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement needs to provide a rationale as to why the land is necessary.
The second measure is not to require a willing-buyer, willing-seller negotiation before starting the expropriation process. This is the preferred way. We always want to buy on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis, and there will always be negotiations with the landowner with regard to compensation, and there is a robust process, like the number of eligible costs that are impacted so that those Canadians that unfortunately need to lose their land will need to be compensated for. In this case, willing-buyer, willing-seller will still happen, but there won’t be a requirement to demonstrate the full extent of how those negotiations took place before launching the expropriation process.
The last thing that I would mention that is important is that when we think of expropriation, we immediately think about somebody losing their home and their property. The tracks will be built mostly where there is nothing. It will actually be a very small percentage of the acquired properties that will have buildings. It will be a portion of a farm, say, or a piece of land. Think about a 50-metre-wide band that will be required. That’s likely going to be at the edge or the side of the land. This is where the process would take place.
The majority, again, will not be homes of Canadians.
Senator Simons: I will ask Ms. Vanstone a question thinking of our colleagues on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. They have complained in the past about the power to have consecutive interim orders and have said they feel this violates the spirit of checking in every time.
Are consecutive interim orders authorized under this legislation?
Ms. Vanstone: So the way that the power would work is it doesn’t prohibit the minister from issuing another interim order. The expectation with the authority, though, is that because it is a three-year authority, that is intended to give the minister the adequate time to bring forward a permanent regulation. Certainly, there is no intention to have numerous orders.
Senator Simons: It doesn’t disallow it.
Ms. Vanstone: It doesn’t disallow it, but there would be a consultation. The minister would need to follow all of the same steps to issue a subsequent interim order on the same topic. That would be the process.
Senator Simons: It doesn’t stop that from happening. All right.
Then the other question is about the Statutory Instruments Act and why it has been excluded from this. Typically, if you take something like the Safe Food for Canadians Act, a power to make an interim order might exclude specific provisions that would impose impractical requirements, but the exclusion of the entire act seems a big step.
Ms. Vanstone: I will ask Andrew to support me on the Statutory Instruments Act.
Andrew Sun, Director, Multimodal & Road Safety Programs, Safety and Security, Departmental Regulatory Affairs, Transport Canada: Regarding the approach with excluding the application of the Statutory Instruments Act, that has become a more common approach in designing these types of newer interim order measures, and it is intended to provide for the current best practice in these types of interim orders.
Senator Simons: Why?
Ms. Vanstone: If you look at the construct of the legislation in terms of the requirements, the statute sets out that the minister needs to consult and to ensure that the interim order is in the public interest. There is a built-in set of parameters that require the minister to go through these steps. That is kind of the connection to essentially having the non-application of the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to this authority.
Senator Simons: The concern is the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee is there for a reason — to scrutinize the regulations. Does this cut them out of the conversation?
Ms. Vanstone: The intention, ultimately, in every case, is that these interim orders would then be turned into a regulation. The challenge that we have faced at Transport Canada is that due to the length of time that it takes to go through the Governor-in-Council process, we have found ourselves lagging behind our international counterparts in implementing very strongly supported and trusted international standards. It puts our businesses at a disadvantage because if they are operating both domestically and internationally, they are then complying with two different sets of standards.
When you look at our obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, we are audited against how we have incorporated those standards. If we are not keeping up to date with those standards, it has implications for our airline industry. So certainly, we want to ensure that the minister has the ability to work and support industry in a timely manner on these international standards and obligations, while respecting that a permanent change would still, of course, always be subject to that GIC process and then, of course, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations would always have the opportunity as those international standards are formalized into the regulations in a permanent way.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here and providing some clarity, though there are still a lot of questions. I think we have all read about the balance that needs to be achieved here, when you compare to places like China, which gets things done very quickly, and California, which has rapid transit that goes to nowhere. So we totally respect the thought that you have put into this process so far. I have one simple question: Is it all above ground or does it go above and below ground?
Mr. Robitaille: It is going to be primarily above ground. It’s important to know that there cannot be any at-grade crossing for high-speed rail. That would mean that in various places, either the tracks need to go above the road or the road will need to go above and the rail under. There may be a few areas where tunnels are required. When we looked at the totality of the length of the project, it will be the minority. The detailed design is being done right now, as we mentioned, so the actual length of bridges and tunnels that will be required will be known in the coming years.
Senator Arnold: You mentioned housing and 63,000 new homes as a result of this. Now, trying not to be overly cumbersome with all the different kinds of engagements and collaborations that you need, I would hope that housing is part of the conversation from the very beginning. Because you mentioned — and thank you, that was very helpful to think about — it having to be straight, but also close to where communities are if we’re going to really build these hubs up around it from a housing perspective. What is the time frame on these 63,000 homes?
Mr. Robitaille: That would be progressively as the project comes on line, right? The Prime Minister has stated the goal of launching construction in 2029 of a first segment between city pairs. With the construction itself, the work is being done but will take at least five to seven years given the complexity. As the project comes online, then you would see the housing developments being built. That would be the general time frame. We’re talking about a decade or so for this to happen.
When we look at the cities that are going to be connected, it is particularly exciting for cities like Peterborough and Trois-Rivières that will literally become suburbs of the big cities, moving to and from. That will unlock a lot of opportunities for more affordable housing for people who want to live there.
We see this particularly on the transit side. There are great examples across the world, whether in Japan or France, where housing was developed because of the network, but even in Canada, with major projects, like the REM, or Réseau express métropolitain, and extensions on the GO network in Toronto, near new stations, a lot of properties are being built. That is what we will see with the high-speed rail network.
Senator Arnold: You mentioned the consortium. As part of that, in the design phase, are the operators of it involved right now, or will they be very soon?
Mr. Robitaille: Thank you for the question. Yes. We designed the process to select a private partner to ensure that the company that will do the operation is involved immediately. This is why the Société national des chemins de fer, the French national railway company, is part of the consortium, as well as Keolis, which is another multinational company, based in France in this case. This is essential. To us, it was a key to success. The network needs to be built with consideration for how it will be operated. That’s one of the lessons learned from projects that are more problematic around the world, where construction is separated from operation, and when you start operation, you find all the things that don’t work. Specifically in Canada, we have one thing that is not unique but is a particularly important challenge as we build this network: winter. So the operating constraints have to be fully addressed before we start operations.
Senator Arnold: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I have two questions. I imagine that the corridor route will go through agricultural land in Ontario and Quebec. I understand that you are going to expropriate certain land, for which you will pay the farmers. For those people, however, the routes for going over and under the track will be complicated. Will the fact that they will have to cross the tracks on land that is being severed be taken into account? Second, will the price paid take into account the income earned from the operation that will be lost immediately and for the years to come?
Mr. Robitaille: Thank you for your question. When we talk about expropriation, the acquisition of land is not something that is taken lightly. We are aware of the impact on people and farmers, because there will definitely be an impact. Certain people are being asked to make a major sacrifice for the common good; that is what expropriation is. In this situation, it is essential that there be good compensation, including for lost profits. The expropriation scheme provides for this type of compensation, which may even impact agricultural activities on the land that may be altered.
There are multiple factors that the Crown corporation, Alto, and the partners will consider, including trying to avoid splitting farm land in two. That will take some effort. Ultimately, having the last 50 metres of the land has an impact, but it is a somewhat lesser impact than having land that is split in two.
So if that is the case, the question would be whether it was possible to buy the other part of the land on the other side, because, as I explained earlier, these there will not be level crossings; they will go over or under. It will be very complex and costly. There will be limits on the number of private crossings that can be built for an HSR project like that. The idea will be to avoid doing it as much as possible. There will be public roads; as is the case when there are highways, there will be a certain number of viaducts going over or tunnels going under.
However, for private crossings, one of the objectives will be to limit the number, but do it in a way that respects and understands the sacrifices being demanded of the people who will lose part of their land.
Senator Aucoin: My second question concerns VIA Rail. You said that VIA Rail trains were going to be improved or modernized, if I understood correctly. However, the rail line does not belong to VIA Rail.
In the Maritimes — I come from Nova Scotia — we are going to be even more deprived than before. If this train comes to pass, then, with the small population we have in the Atlantic provinces, are we going to be even more deprived, with fewer services than we have today?
Mr. Robitaille: I think it is important that we not see the projects as being in competition with each other. What we want is for there to be more people taking the train in the corridor and everywhere in the country.
In that case, yes, the high-speed rail, or HSR, project is currently concentrated between Toronto and Quebec City. The investments being proposed for renewing the fleet are also going to improve services in the other regions of the country.
While the operational limitations that are imposed by VIA Rail Canada sharing or using mainly Canadian National’s tracks . . . They are not going to disappear, but the HSR project in itself will not be at the expense of service outside the corridor.
Senator Aucoin: Continuing in that vein, if there are fewer passengers for the Toronto-Quebec City route on the VIA Rail tracks, there may be less revenue. Are they going to improve their tracks, or their rails, in Atlantic or western Canada? That is what I am wondering about and we may all wonder about, I think.
Mr. Robitaille: Since the services operate at a deficit all across Canada, we have a situation where one part of the country is currently generating profits. My colleagues have given me information on my computer to answer part of Senator Quinn’s question. It is expected that the network will make optional profits once it is in effect.
So once a part of the network starts making money, rail service across the country is in a better position. Regarding investments, VIA Rail pays for access to CN rails, and CN is responsible for updates and maintenance for the service.
The project will not change that situation itself and will not alter the need for CN to maintain its tracks in acceptable condition so the railway service can be provided.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Mohamed: I’m from Toronto, and I can’t wait for this to happen. You mentioned five to seven years before we break ground. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Robitaille: The Prime Minister has announced that construction on the first segment will start in 2029. That would be for construction to start, so that’s in four years.
Senator Mohamed: Right.
Mr. Robitaille: Five to seven years is just a very high-level ballpark estimate for the length of the construction, but the government will be able to come back with a more precise time frame for construction once the development is more advanced.
Senator Mohamed: I’m from Toronto, and we’re dealing with the Ontario line, so this question comes with that in mind. With massive-scale projects, there is change in government and sometimes change in the level of support. I’m not sure what would keep you up at night on this, but if it were me, I would be kept up thinking that we’re moving away from a Governor-in-Council system and putting more power in the hands of the Minister of Transport. If you think about four years from now, we could have a different government. How do we minimize risk with a $4-billion commitment, plans, uprooting people from where they live and a very big question around agriculture? The risk of this around a change of government gives me pause.
I’m not asking you to be political, but that must be part of the equation when you look at long-term national projects that cost this kind of money. I’m wondering if that’s on the radar. How do you manage risk?
Mr. Robitaille: The demand for transportation in this corridor will only grow, so there is a very strong rationale and business case for the project. That’s very important. That will not change.
The way the project is being advanced is to fully develop exactly where the tracks will be, the business case, the exact cost and the exact amount of land that will be required. Then there will be a final investment decision that will be made based on all of this information by the government of the day. It is a massive investment, so it is important that the government of the day makes that final decision once it has all of this information.
But again, the business case for this project is very strong, and, as we all know, Canada is the only G7 country that doesn’t have a high-speed rail system.
Senator Mohamed: That makes my colleague’s question about when you will break even that much more important. Most of the time, governments pull back because the economics don’t work or they don’t want to be seen to be spending a certain amount of money. I would encourage that we double down on getting the financial data relating to this. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Senator Quinn and Senator Mohamed have just raised issues relating to jurisdiction that I want to explore a little bit in order to understand the implications.
In 1972, the federal government purchased over 18,000 acres of land in Pickering to build a Pickering airport. We don’t have a Pickering airport. The final decision was actually made this year — if you can you believe it — 50 years later.
Nevertheless, one of the many reasons why Pickering didn’t go ahead was that the provincial government of the day refused to provide services to the future airport. They didn’t want to build roads or provide services to this airport.
Then this raises the question of federal jurisdiction. What powers does the federal jurisdiction give you in running this railway? Let’s think about the future Province of Quebec. There could be a government that might say that this is a bad idea. Could we see a scenario like this down the road, in which the provinces raise strong objections and create barriers such that this project couldn’t go ahead, just like in Pickering, for example?
Mr. Robitaille: Thanks for this very important question. This is something that we have learned, having studied major projects across the world. We have also studied major projects in Canada. Provincial and municipal support is essential. This train cannot go to nowhere. It needs to link with the local transit networks. It needs to link to the road systems. This is why both Transport Canada and the Crown corporation Alto have been extensively engaging with the provinces very regularly to ensure there is coordination with them. We are seeing strong collaboration and support in making this a success.
I cannot predict future changes in government and so on, but I can say that the collaboration and working relationship is as strong as we could hope with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Declaring the project to be in the general interest of Canada doesn’t really change that. This is more about us working together to build a system that works. Again, it needs to work for Canada; it needs to work for Ontario and Quebec; and it needs to work for Toronto, Ottawa and Peterborough. So, that’s the only way we can reap the full benefit of the transportation, but also when we were talking about housing, for example, so there are a number of actions needed by the various partners. I hope it reassures you a bit about where we are — and about the fact that this is considered, in all aspects, a key to success for the project.
Senator Dasko: It reminds me of the incredible challenges involved if all these pieces have to come together. We were talking about the support of two provinces and several municipalities, and it seems like a very challenging assignment. Thank you.
Senator Wilson: From a project management point of view, I understand why you would be breaking this up into different segments and making each individual segment a designated project. As someone who has shepherded projects through the federal environment assessment process, the idea of having so many separate designated projects would absolutely keep me awake at night.
I have a few questions. I’m assuming that you’ll start on one segment with its EIA process while also beginning on the second so you’re not losing time.
More important — and this might not be a question that is easy for you to answer, but I’m sure it’s something you have been talking about — while that this is not a project of national interest under Bill C-5, I’m assuming it’s going to be a project that is referred to the Major Projects Office or will at least have focused attention from government. I have a comment and a concern. My comment is that my observation has been that a lot of the slowdowns in getting through the EIA process federally are due to lack of resources. Sometimes, it can be because you run into activists inside certain departments who have a particular thing they are trying to protect, then you get slow blocking.
My question is this: What is being done to counter that if we’re not dealing with this as a Bill C-5 project? Second, if we’re going to be diverting resources to make this happen, what is to say that other projects are not going to be losing out because this will become a focus? That could be true of any major project, but that’s what I’m thinking about with so many things coming down the pipe and knowing how slowly things go through the IAC process. I’m curious.
Mr. Robitaille: Thanks.
The project has been named a national strategy that has large potential for Canada. As a result, the Major Projects Office is already supporting the project — we have started interacting with them — using the different powers and tools they have to assist with the regulatory process. The government has not made a decision at this point whether high-speed rail will be subject to Bill C-5 and be deemed a project of national interest. That’s an assessment that is being done right now. We know that measures — for example, the high-speed rail network — is required for the project to be possible. That is the first thing.
I think you’re correct in saying that the environmental impact assessment process is very important, but it’s very resource intensive. That’s something that is a key consideration for us as well as for other regulators. The Crown corporation Alto and Transport Canada have already been engaging with all the regulators for over a year to understand what the regulatory requirements will be and to be able to do a lot of the work upstream to be ready for those.
But I don’t want to understate the importance of this process and getting this right.
Senator Quinn: I want to come back to the jurisdiction question again. Some of my colleagues have raised this question: Do you have the written consent of the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec for the project? Have you negotiated or consulted with the municipalities that are affected by this? Have you completed the consultative process with the Aboriginal communities that could be affected by this project?
I’m asking all these questions because they are essential in determining whether the project can be successful over the long run. I think that’s what Senator Dasko was getting at. There are so many factors here. Have you done the fundamentals? Have you received written consent from the provinces, the communities and the Indigenous Peoples who are affected?
Mr. Robitaille: The process has already started with all of these stakeholders. As I mentioned, intense discussions with provinces have already started. Mayors, for example, of the different cities have been met with, as well as their teams, on numerous occasions, primarily by the Crown corporation Alto. Exchanges and discussions with the Indigenous communities that are impacted — there are over 40 — have already been happening for three years.
At the same time, they are not concluded for the reason that I think we have discussed, which is that the specific alignment of where the track will be has not been finalized at this point. It’s not possible or reasonable to ask for a blank cheque from anybody. This will be ongoing. At this point, it is essential for Alto, the Crown corporation, to listen to the concerns, interests and ambitions of all of those communities and take these into account in the project so that once they have developed a design and we have the operating model, then we can present it and then obtain the full support.
But I can say that the response is enthusiastic. People want high-speed rail. Communities want to have the ability to travel faster and want to see the greenhouse gas, or GHG, benefits. Much like you as senators, there is the sense of common enthusiasm about doing the project, but there are also important questions being raised. That’s about the same with the communities that are touched: They want this to happen, but they want it done right.
Senator Quinn: I agree. I think people in this country, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, would like to have more a rapid transit system between major cities such as Toronto and Quebec City. I’m not sure about the routing, because when I asked the financial analysis question, one would assume that they really can’t perform a complete financial analysis until the route is pretty much known. You can’t do consultations until it’s pretty much known. Yet this project is on the list of projects that have not yet been submitted to the Major Projects Office, but it’s a highlight of things that are coming.
It seems there are steps being taken, such as saying, “We may expropriate land, if required.” I think of Mirabel when I say that — “We may require this land.”
So it sounds as if you’re kind of ahead of the game without having the details to answer some fundamental questions around cost analysis and things like that. Therefore, why wouldn’t you — at this stage, for example, without knowing the exact routing but with the theory that you have talked about, that people want it — seek the written consent of the legislatures of Quebec and Ontario so they can debate it and hopefully give you all-party consent? Why wouldn’t you do something as simple as that to help expedite the project and the decisions as to where this thing is going?
I would say the same for cities and towns and for Indigenous folks.
Mr. Robitaille: I’ll unpack your question in two parts.
First, I understand your concern around why some things are not defined yet. The development is a four-year process. Alto, the Crown corporation, listens. Then, there is a preferred alignment. Then we consult again. So it’s going to be progressing. What we’re doing now is setting the legislative framework that is essential for that work to happen.
Then, based upon that, you have a more detailed business case — a more precise ridership forecast and a new profitability forecast. That leads to the final investment decision by the government. This is a four-year process to get to the launch of construction.
Senator Quinn: I will ask you to pause because I’ve been involved in major projects, like a major shipbuilding projects and a port project, and the timeline, in my experience, never matches what we would hope for. You’re hoping for fours years to get all that done. What is your backup plan? What’s Plan B? The likelihood of you succeeding in all of the things you have outlined that you need to do in the four-year period — there is going to be slippage, so what is your backup plan? How do you deal with that? That must keep you awake.
Mr. Robitaille: Managing the schedule of major projects is an incredible challenge. We are proud that since the procurement was launched, we have been following the schedule that was set out. We’re actually under budget and within schedule, so that’s something that we are very proud of with this project, but you are right that any experienced project manager in the face of such a major project will and should lose sleep about the schedule. That’s an essential condition to actually meeting the schedule. If you don’t lose sleep, you’re not going to deliver.
Please do not take our answers today to mean that we’re understating the significant challenge that this project represents.
Senator Quinn: We’re putting together a parliamentary oversight committee. It’s going to be 11 elected folks and 5 senators. Collectively, they will provide oversight and review how the Governor-in-Council, or GIC, and the government have carried out their functions under the act. Among those criteria is the likelihood of success. My observation, at this point, is that the most concrete thing that is done that you have some control over, when this division is dealt with and the Budget Implementation Act is passed, is the invocation of the declaratory power. That gives you certainty and seems to be the most concrete thing that you have.
You’re very early in the process, and there is one concrete thing that is done. I understand the necessity for that. But I’m worried about all the other things that the committee will have to review. How are we going to evaluate where you are every 180 days as well as how successful this project could be, which is another criterion?
Mr. Robitaille: There is a robust framework. Now that we have the Crown corporation advancing the project, the Minister of Transport is responsible for overseeing and keeping track of the project on behalf of taxpayers, so our role is exactly what you described: making sure that it gets done.
We need to provide assurance to the minister and to the oversight committee.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There is less transparency in this bill than there is in most projects. One example is the fact that there will be no public hearings in expropriation cases when an objection to an expropriation is received. There will be a written response, but nothing in any of that ensures transparency. Transparency is one of the strengths of our democracy. Obviously, transparency is time-consuming. In this case, did you feel it would take too long to hold public hearings?
Mr. Robitaille: In fact, without going back over all the points, given the geometry of a high-speed rail line, the act is more honest with the public about the process. They will be able to make objections and they may be given answers in order to determine whether or not it is possible to adjust the alignment.
I think the hearing process, with an investigator who goes on site, goes back again, looks at the plan and says that if the high‑speed rail line is moved, a house 20 kilometres farther away has to be torn down, which could have been avoided . . . This is what kind of does not reflect the real nature of the challenge involved in constructing a straight track for a high-speed train.
This is not something we take lightly, but at some point, if we have hundreds of investigators going on site to determine the same thing — that the track can’t be moved because of the secondary impact it will have on properties farther away or on environmentally sensitive areas — or determine that the costs will explode given that it will require a 500-metre tunnel . . . That is the kind of situation we have.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I want to come back to Senator Wilson’s question about the impact assessment. There are things I wonder about too. It is going to take a lot of commissioners. If you want to do segment-by-segment assessments, and obviously the segments might overlap, it will be a long and complex operation that will require a lot of people working on it, because it will require commissioners and there will be public hearings, as I understand it.
Should we start thinking right now about what you said, that it may well be that Bill C-5 will be applied to this bill down the road to speed things up, and so at that point the scope or length of time for doing impact assessments, or how thorough they will be, might be reduced, since any law can be suspended?
Mr. Robitaille: I am going to talk about a few points in this regard.
First, there will be no overlap between segments. The idea is that the entire network will ultimately be subject to impact assessments, but nothing will be looked at twice.
If we look at the local situation, if things had been considered in one or more assessments, there will not be much duplication in the process. That is what we anticipate.
That being said, regarding the efforts that the agency will have to put into the impact assessments, I think you have invited them to testify next week, so I am going to suggest that you ask them the question. They will be able to answer much better than I can. I don’t want to speculate on their behalf.
What I can tell you today is that we have been holding discussions with them for several years in anticipation of the project and the changes that have been proposed, for example, have been made in consultation with them.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Did I understand correctly, that the government could decide that Bill C-5 applies to this bill at any point?
Mr. Robitaille: That’s right. No decision has yet been made about applying Bill C-5. The Major Projects Office is already supporting the process.
One way or another, the requirements in the impact assessment will have to be met. They are important. Regardless of the decision made, the work itself will have to be done. This must be kept in mind.
[English]
Senator Simons: Mr. Robitaille, as you can tell, we’re very excited about trains. Even though I live in Edmonton and I’m still fantasizing about a high-speed train from Edmonton to Calgary, I also care about this train.
But my question is for Ms. Vanstone because somebody also has to be passionate about scrutiny of regulations. I have been thinking about your answers to me in the last round about how we need to be nimble and able to act quickly, but as I understand it, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations does its work afterward. I do not see how cutting them out of the process speeds anything up. Did I miss something in your explanation?
Ms. Vanstone: I think you’re referring to the question about the Statutory Instruments Act. Again, the non-application in this case is fairly consistent with how interim orders are approached in various statutes. Obviously, there are robust requirements proposed in the authorities in terms of ensuring that the minister is acting in the public interest and is consulting with impacted entities. Actually, it requires the minister to consult with anyone they would deem appropriate.
We certainly fully respect the role of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and the important feedback and oversight that they bring to the regulatory process. Certainly, speaking to the previous question, this is really intended to be a short-term order, an interim order, in order to have Canada move forward with its international obligations and then be able to enshrine that in regulations. Essentially, the impetus for this, of course, is to be able to act in a timely manner and to be able to avoid a prolonged delay for Canada in meeting its international obligations or be in line — yes.
Senator Simons: I am concerned about the fact that these can be rolled over, and it can be 3, 6, 9, 12 — I won’t keep counting by threes, but that we can go on without having the typical scrutiny.
The other question I have is about transparency and accessibility. As I read this, the government is required to make interim orders accessible unless the minister is of the opinion that it would be “. . . inappropriate due to exceptional circumstances, such as if making the interim order accessible compromises public safety.” I find that perplexing. In what circumstance would we be regulating in secret?
Ms. Vanstone: In fact, in the areas where we regulate the security of the transportation system, we have regulatory measures that are not published because they could compromise the integrity of that measure. We don’t want nefarious actors to know the ins and outs of some of the ways that we regulate security. It actually protects the integrity of those security measures. So that is really that portion of the proposed authorities. It is very much in direct relation to the security framework and the need to have some of those measures — again, it is quite exceptional, but some of those measures to be on a need-to-know basis for those regulated entities to know what they need to do to comply but to not have information available to actors who would try to undermine that.
Senator Simons: If I have time, I have a quick question for Mr. Robitaille. This speaks to something that Senator Cormier and Senator Quinn talked about earlier. Obviously, to have high‑speed rail, you need fewer stops because otherwise you keep slowing down. But there are all kinds of communities currently served by VIA — like Kingston and Cornwall — that will be left out of the very fabulous new fast train. Will there be any kind of budgetary set-aside encompassed in this to shuttle people from where the VIA line goes? I assume the VIA line will still need to run to provide service to those communities because otherwise communities will lose their rail service entirely. So how will the new line integrate with the existing VIA service in that general corridor?
Mr. Robitaille: The government’s requirement for the project is for the existing communities — say, Kingston or Drummondville — to continue to be served by rail service. In the case of Drummondville, for example, the new track will go north of the St. Lawrence River, so it will not be served by the high‑speed rail, but it will be served by a service that is similar to the current one.
The request that the government has made to the Crown corporation Alto and the private partner is to find ways to improve the service. When we say this, it is useful — I don’t know if senators have had the opportunity to take the train starting from an intermediary city, so not from Toronto or from —
Senator Simons: I got skunked by Air Canada and had to take the train once from Toronto to Ottawa, and I stopped at Kingston for a couple of delightful hours in the Kingston waiting area.
Mr. Robitaille: Okay. The challenge we have right now is that for great reason, VIA is optimizing the service between one big city and another. For example, if you take Montreal and Toronto, the goal is to have a schedule that is great for somebody who is starting from Montreal and going to Toronto or the other way around. And if you’re in between — I looked at the schedule, and sometimes you could not get a train between, say, Cornwall and Toronto or between Montreal — you would not be able to get to your ultimate destination before 12 p.m. or 1 p.m. So if you are going to a meeting or you want to spend the whole day somewhere, the schedule is really bad. So the opportunity of moving all the intercity travellers between the major cities is that you will be able to adjust the schedule so that it suits the needs of someone leaving from Drummondville, from Kingston, from Cornwall and so on and notionally having a service that is more relevant to them.
As well, some limitations of running through the CN tracks will remain. But if the starting point of the train is, say, Drummondville, then it leaves on time, so the on-time performance can improve because of that optimized schedule. So there are opportunities. But this is a request and a requirement that was placed upon the Crown corporation and Cadence to present the best proposal for service for the cities currently served by VIA. It is an important element of the project for the government.
Senator Simons: As someone who lives in Edmonton, where the train leaves at midnight and gets you to Jasper at 5 a.m., I’m all in favour of train schedules that leave when humans do.
Mr. Robitaille: I’ve taken that train. I know.
The Chair: I would ask that everyone keep their questions limited, please.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I have more of a comment to make, since Senator Simons asked the fundamental question, which is the relationship between Alto . . . Between this high-speed train project and VIA Rail.
In 2026, the train will have been leaving the Dalhousie station in Montreal and going to Vancouver, which was called Granville at that time, for 140 years. So this vision of the train providing national unification of Canada existed back then. I imagine that the present project, and this may be a question better put to the Prime Minister than to you, is a project that would strengthen the ties that unite Canadians from sea to sea.
So my question was about the relationship between VIA Rail . . . I think you answered it in part, but if you have something to add, for example about the need to genuinely ensure that VIA Rail service is not just maintained, but improved, and taken into consideration, but in the course of preparing this bill . . . In other words, how can we be sure, and tell people in Bathurst or Edmonton, that this service will continue to improve and will be maintained?
Mr. Robitaille: In terms of the corridor, as I said, the proposal as a whole will deal with the existing services and the new services. Outside the corridor, it is VIA Rail’s responsibility and that will continue to be the case. However, there are still major investments. Replacing the fleet outside the corridor is important and is necessary for preserving and improving the service. That is kind of what I can tell you.
Senator Cormier: VIA Rail is the one that will be responsible for national unity, from what I understand.
Mr. Robitaille: Yes.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: To clarify, when this BIA becomes law, you will have had the declaratory power put in place, which in effect takes jurisdictions from the provinces —
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee adjourned.)