THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 10, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:46 p.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.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator from Quebec and chair of the committee. I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting from my left.
Senator Simons: Good evening, I’m Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Mohamed: Hi, I’m Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Hello and welcome. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Good evening, Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us, as well as those listening online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca. We are meeting tonight to continue 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. This evening we will hear from witnesses specifically on Division 1, which creates the high-speed rail network act.
With that, I would like to introduce our first panel. From the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, we welcome Chief Francis Verreault-Paul; from the Assembly of First Nations, Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict, Chiefs of Ontario, and Julie McGregor, Chief of Staff; and from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Sandra Schwartz, National Executive Director. Thank you to all of you for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. That will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I now invite Chief Verreault-Paul to give his opening remarks.
Chief Francis Verreault-Paul, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador: [Indigenous language spoken]
My name is Francis Verreault-Paul, and I am the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present today on Part 5, Division 1, of Bill C-15.
This bill empowers VIA HFR Inc. or its successors to plan and build an Ontario-Quebec high-speed corridor. The proposed project crosses the territories of several First Nations, including the Wabanaki, the Wendat, the Innu, the Atikamekw and the Kanien:keha’ka on the Quebec side. The route is declared “. . . works for the general advantage of Canada,” streamlining federal oversight and pre-approving construction, while limiting recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency to challenge approvals.
But this bill also raises questions about the duty to consult and to accommodate as well as to abide by the principle of free, prior and informed consent on the part of First Nations.
[Translation]
Like Bill C-5, this bill exempts the railway line construction from the authorization required under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act.
Since the federal government will not be able to rely on the regular processes for First Nations consultations, there are fewer opportunities for consultation and accommodation of First Nations, which could be contrary to the honour of the Crown.
[English]
The combination of fast-track approval, land acquisition and expropriation powers, as proposed in this bill, risks sidestepping meaningful review and remedies for affected First Nations. While simplifying or accelerating a process is not an issue in and of itself, it is worth noting that there is no clear mechanism, let alone a clear exemption pertaining to First Nations, reserve or ancestral lands.
Expropriation cannot be treated as a routine instrument of convenience. It directly engages constitutional protection under section 35 and the Crown’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, including free, prior and informed consent, which Canada pledged to align federal laws with through the UNDRIP Act process.
Senators, one thing is clear: Consultation and consent must be concrete and immediate, not just theoretical. If Canada insists this high-speed corridor is for the general advantage, the right of first refusal on any Crown or corporate acquisition of lands and interests within our territories must clearly confirm on what lands this mechanism is applied before expropriation is even contemplated.
In this case, clauses 8(1) to 11 do not make any clear specification about ancestral or reserve lands. Does it mean that this provision applies to First Nations and our territories? Does it mean that the Government of Canada and the developers can override the duty to consult and to accommodate First Nations prior to exercising this right of refusal? Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
As in the Impact Assessment Act, Indigenous knowledge is referenced concerning confidentiality and public disclosure, but the collection or generation of knowledge stemming from First Nations can still be used in this case in direct contravention to our own protocols on intellectual property. Under the OCAP principle — ownership, control, access and possession — First Nations own and govern data about our lands and peoples. Any data collection, storage, sharing and publication must be governed by nation-specific OCAP agreements with community-level stewardship, data residency guarantees and access protocols First Nations set for themselves. OCAP is not optional. It’s the minimum standard for First Nations data governance.
Unlike other provisions, clause 25(6) of the bill is potentially concerning. It could mean First Nations could lose any real way to challenge if their knowledge is shared, unless they can prove bad faith or that it was unreasonable. That puts a huge burden of proof on our communities.
If the high-speed rail network act proceeds in its current form through potential unilateral expropriation powers and extractive practices, it will run against what Prime Minister Carney concluded at the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, last week; national-interest projects can and must be carriers of reconciliation. As he said just a week ago, any major project must be informed by and can only move forward with First Nations.
The task is simple. The Government of Canada and developers must engage in government-to-government relations, treat our knowledge and data as sacred and consider our lands as living relations.
[Translation]
Thank you, everyone.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Verreault-Paul.
I now invite Chief Benedict to make his opening remarks.
[English]
Abram Benedict, Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario, Assembly of First Nations: Greetings. I am Abram Benedict, the Ontario Regional Chief and a member of the Mohawks of Akwesasne.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are here gathered on the territory of the Algonquin Nation.
Thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear along with my colleague Regional Chief Verreault-Paul for the Quebec-Labrador region.
This summer, we watched as the Government of Canada rammed through legislation in less than 20 days. During that time, First Nations successfully advocated for the removal of the Indian Act from the scope of the legislation because we wanted to prevent our lands from being expropriated on the basis of moving national-interest projects forward.
First Nations maintained sovereignty over their lands, waters and territories, and any attempts to amend legislation must include free, prior and informed consent of First Nations.
The Government of Canada is once again attempting to advance major project development by overriding First Nations’ inherent rights and jurisdiction, this time through amendments to the high-speed rail network act contained in the omnibus legislation, Bill C-15. The amendments to the high-speed rail network act provide broad authority to surrender, enter and ultimately expropriate lands deemed for the rail development. Without explicit protection, these powers could be used to target First Nations lands.
The act bypasses the normal regulatory review process for this type of project. First Nations have seen this type of behaviour before from Canada. Bill C-5, which enacted the Building Canada Act, is designed to fast-track major projects while setting aside First Nations’ rights. This is concerning.
The high-speed rail legislation reflects the same pattern and complete disregard for First Nations’ inherent rights. Rather than streamlining processes, this act causes further uncertainty by ignoring Canada’s obligations and relationship to First Nations.
Canada has committed to the full implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes the obligations to free, prior and informed consent and informed consent before approving any project that impacts First Nations’ rights, First Nations’ lands and First Nations’ territories.
Article 10 of the UN declaration prohibits the forced removal of Indigenous Peoples from their lands. Article 32 further provides that Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine development priorities for what occurs on their lands. The high-speed rail network act, as drafted, does not meet these standards. As amended, the act greatly expands federal powers to expropriate lands. These powers could potentially apply to First Nations’ lands and could cause harm to the First Nations.
Because of Canada’s history of land theft for railway and the importance of land to First Nations, strong legal safeguards are essential. The act must prohibit expropriation of First Nations’ lands without free, prior and informed consent.
First Nations are rightful decision makers of our lands. The Government of Canada cannot use legislation to sidestep our rights simply because they want to build faster. When First Nations raised concerns about the expropriation of Indian lands under the Canada Building Act, Canada removed the Indian Act from the legislation. Even with those amendments, this was being added back in this legislation.
The railway provision in Bill C-15 is now threatening to recreate the same pathway for federal overreach that First Nations have fought to stop. Bill C-15 cannot and must not proceed like this without amendments.
Parliament should consider amending the legislation to specify that First Nations’ lands are protected from expropriation. The AFN will provide the committee with specific language for proposed amendments following this submission. The fiduciary duty owed to First Nations and constitutional rights of First Nations cannot be undone through legislation.
Removing legislative safeguards that Canada usually relies on for upholding its fiduciary obligations or its duty to consult and accommodate does not make First Nations’ rights go away. But it does create additional uncertainty. It forces First Nations and the Crown to develop new and untested methods for recognizing the constitutional rights of First Nations.
The legislation is simply another attempt to use legislation to dispossess First Nations of our lands and sidestep our inherent rights.
I want to thank the committee again for the opportunity to speak tonight, and I look forward to the questions later.
[Indigenous language spoken]
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Benedict. I now invite Ms. Schwartz to give her opening remarks.
[Translation]
Sandra Schwartz, National Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Bill C-15.
[English]
I’m Sandra Schwartz. I’m the National Executive Director of an organization called the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, also known as CPAWS. We were founded more than 60 years ago, and we are the only charity in Canada dedicated to the protection of public land, fresh water and ocean, and we have regional offices, 13 of them, across the country from the Yukon through to Newfoundland, along with our national office here in Ottawa.
I would like to start with first acknowledging that we are gathered on unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, who are the customary keepers of the Ottawa watershed. It’s also known in this area as Kitchissippi. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Algonquin Peoples for their role as the traditional guardians of this place and for their ongoing stewardship of these land and waters.
This evening, senators, as you have heard from witnesses, there are concerns with some of Canada’s proposed major projects. And I guess it will come as no surprise, coming from an environmental group, that there are concerns with the processes, as laid out by both Regional Chiefs.
One such proposal under consideration, however, is the Alto high-speed rail project, which will become Canada’s first high-speed railway, spanning approximately 1,000 kilometres from Toronto to Quebec City. CPAWS certainly does recognize that a high-speed rail network would be a transformative project. Those of my colleagues who are in the climate community certainly do see that this is a bold investment in clean, efficient transportation.
But we also know that so-called nation-building projects come with significant responsibilities. Some of those choices shape our economy, our communities and our environment for generations. So we need to find a balance between supporting Canada’s natural environment and our economy. Nature is not an obstacle to progress. It is the foundation of our economy, security and our well-being.
When natural systems are damaged, the costs show up in flood recovery, bills in insurance payouts and lost productivity. Protecting nature is not just a box to check; it is smart economics. By integrating nature protection into our development strategies, Canada can build a future where economic growth and environmental stewardship can go hand in hand.
I would, as well, say it is also a future that includes reconciliation.
This will only be made possible by making biodiversity conservation a core part of decision making. It needs to consider climate resilience and environmental protection, ensuring neither is overlooked in the pursuit of progress in record time, as well as respect Indigenous rights and leadership, with meaningful Indigenous engagement and public participation in planning. I will underscore that last point.
These principles are more than theoretical. They need to guide every major development undertaken in Canada, including the Alto high-speed rail project. If planned responsibly, this rail network could represent real innovation and modernization of transportation in Eastern Canada. However, this also means choosing the least environmentally harmful route, rather than the most direct or cheapest option.
This route needs to be identified using the best available science and Traditional Knowledge. Identifying wetlands, wildlife hotspots and species-at-risk zones, then implementing strong mitigation measures to prevent train-wildlife collisions will be important, as well as embedding Indigenous leadership in project design, planning, construction and monitoring. That also will include appropriate consultation and consideration of input. We need to ensure that the data collected in long-term monitoring of environmental variables is both open-access and used in adaptive responses, thereby maintaining the integrity of both infrastructure and environment over time.
Together, these steps will protect critical habitats, reduce wildlife collisions, uphold Indigenous leadership and create transparency, leading to the strengthening of Canadians’ trust in development projects. These safeguards, frankly, are not optional. They are the standard for a future where economic growth and environmental stewardship go hand in hand.
So it will be critical for major projects like this one to follow all applicable laws and regulations. Elsewhere in the government’s omnibus budget bill, namely Division 5 of Part 5, there is language that would undermine this principle, and we encourage this committee, as well as other committees studying this legislation in advance, to consider whether this is reasonable. I would argue that Division 5 of Part 5 is not.
Canada’s economic future depends on more than concrete, oil and steel. It depends on the natural systems that quietly sustain our health, safety and prosperity. Creating a conservation economy means treating nature as a strategic asset, not an afterthought. It means investing in ecosystems the way we invest in infrastructure because nature is the foundation that shields us from disasters, supports clean air and water and helps stabilize our climate.
As First Nations teachings have also taught us as settlers, they are our relations, and we should treat them with the same level of respect.
As Canada embraces nation-building projects through Bill C-15 and the Building Canada Act, we also need to build this conservation economy. At a time of economic uncertainty, overlooking nature as a strategic asset is not just a policy failure; it’s a national risk with generational consequences.
Two key steps to creating an economy that values the natural systems that underpin our long-term prosperity are, first, renewing critical nature funding that supports and protects Canada’s natural assets, like national parks, and funding for Indigenous guardians; and, second, including natural capital such as forests, wetlands, grasslands and other ecosystems into the Public Accounts of Canada before the costs of inaction become irreversible.
With the current economic uncertainties and volatilities, Canada’s natural capital is an overlooked competitive advantage. When we fund nature conservation and embed it in critical decisions, we support our nation’s economic independence, reduce risk, strengthen resilience and productivity, and we create a foundation for lasting economic security.
Senators, Canada’s natural advantage is more than our vast, diverse and abundant natural resources, as I’ve stated. And our national parks and other protected areas are more than just tourist destinations. They are powerful economic assets, so an economy that invests in natural systems will underpin our long-term national prosperity. It’s the path forward, and it’s one Canada cannot afford to ignore.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Schwartz. We’ll move on to questions from senators.
Senator Lewis: Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing tonight and taking time. Some of you travelled a long distance to be here. We certainly appreciate it.
You talked about routing, all three of the witnesses. Is there a preferred route now that is more problematic than possible alternatives? When I think of First Nations, for instance, is there routing available that wouldn’t cross through a First Nation? I’d like your opinion on that.
Mr. Benedict: I can touch on that. I think there are a couple of elements to consider. Will there ever be a perfect route? No, absolutely not. Let’s be frank about that. A thousand kilometres through people’s backyards, through First Nations’ territories, through farmlands, through municipalities is an undertaking in itself.
I think what is missing in the Government of Canada’s approach is the process of how we get there. We know that through the legislation, the ability to expropriate already puts people on the other end — the rights holders or the land holders or the farmers — at a disadvantage because it will be a take-it-or-leave-it position, and I don’t think that is acceptable, understanding that the route itself will require sitting at tables, conference tables, in people’s homes and coming up with a solution that will benefit.
First Nations are not against development. They are against the erosion of rights and routes that will have damages to the lands and the waters that will be everlasting.
I think that the legislative approach, the expansion of expropriation powers, is unacceptable.
Ms. Schwartz: If I could also just add, the perspective from a conservation organization would be that it needs to be a corridor that avoids sensitive areas, and, again, as the Regional Chief stated, we are also not against development. We, in fact, recently, as the government announced its intentions with some major projects — the Crawford mine in northern Ontario — we would support. We don’t support the Ring of Fire because of the challenges with the peatlands that would be carved up as a result and the greenhouse gas emissions. Just simply, peatlands are very sensitive habitats.
As an organization, we would always be thinking about what we refer to as the mitigation hierarchy, and the first step in that hierarchy is not offsetting the damage you’ve done but avoiding it to begin with. You’re avoiding sensitive areas. You want to document the reductions in habitat fragmentation so that if, in fact, you need to think about a species as it moves through its habitat, you want to document where that fragmentation is taking place and potentially replace it with another area for the species to continue to move.
As you’re thinking about ramping up a project like this, you also want to think about the wildlife collisions and make sure you are putting mitigation measures in place for that.
Indigenous-led monitoring needs to be in place, and that was already spoken to in terms of the knowledge that needs to be held as sacred, and when it is shared, it must not necessarily be shared beyond the proponent and the government. We would also definitely say, as peoples who have a deep respect for the land and have a very different relationship with the land than settlers do, the communities that live off those lands should do the monitoring.
Also, we need to ensure that any of the data sets on the environment are publicly accessible and that there’s also a demonstrated climate-resilient performance.
The Chair: Can we ask Chief Verreault-Paul to add his comments so that we have initial comments from each individual, but we can mesh them together so we can have an active discussion on the whole issue?
Chief, would you give us some feedback, please?
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Thank you. I will be very brief because I don’t want to repeat what has been said, because I totally agree with what Regional Chief Benedict mentioned about the consent and the consultation process.
As I touched on in my speech, I mentioned the fact that the First Nations also have the right of refusal. What happens if it does happen? I’m not saying that this is going to happen, but I think this all relates to the approach that will be built with First Nations regarding the consultation process and the consent process as well. There are some grey areas in what’s being proposed in the bill as of now, and the right of refusal is one of them. Thank you.
Senator Simons: What I realized when I became a senator is that every region of the country has a different kind of treaty relationship with the Crown. I introduce myself as coming from Treaty 6 territory because in Alberta we have numbered treaties, and those treaty rights are fairly well established.
I wanted to understand, both from Chief Verreault-Paul and from Regional Chief Benedict, as you’re understanding the hypothetical alignment of this rail line, would it go through land that is reserve land or land that is unsurrendered and unceded, if you understand the differentiation?
Mr. Benedict: Yes, there is a differentiation. I believe there is a differentiation around that in many legal aspects.
I have not seen the route. I know how to draw it from —
Senator Simons: Nobody has seen the actual route, but I want to get a sense along that alignment.
Mr. Benedict: There would be both, but it would predominately likely be traditional territories versus reserve.
But the ability to have expropriation of reserve is quite different than other lands, and this legislation does pave the way for expropriation of reserve lands under the Indian Act, which is unacceptable.
Senator Simons: That’s what I wanted to clarify.
And for Mr. Verreault-Paul, would it be the same in Quebec?
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Yes, it’s the exact same.
Senator Simons: The idea of expropriating reserve land seems very problematic to me. If one tried that in Treaty 6 territory, there would be extraordinary pushback.
Can you explain to me — because I don’t know the Indian Act as well as I ought — what the powers are that the Crown has to expropriate under the Indian Act? How do you expropriate reserve land that has been settled on a nation?
Mr. Benedict: I think that, through the existing regime under the Indian Act, it is not completely easy as well, but definitely the language that is proposed in this gives the ability for the minister to be satisfied and then to go to cabinet to get an order-in-council. I think that through the normal process —
Senator Simons: But it’s your land. It’s not like private property. It is a First Nation.
Mr. Benedict: That’s right, but under the provisions being proposed, it is possible. It gives the government the ability to do that.
What is also important is that it gives the government the ability to sidestep the Impact Assessment Act and the Canada Transportation Act. These are critical checks and balances for the protection of lands, and so it paves the way for the government to take land and sidestep all of the checks and balances that Canadians expect from their government.
Senator Simons: And for Mr. Verreault-Paul, would you expect there to be nation-to-nation negotiations? If this is sovereign treaty land, surely there is a different protocol than expropriating somebody’s barn or a gas station, because the land is held in common by the First Nation.
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Yes, totally. Again, I mentioned earlier that there are some grey areas, and the one about expropriation is not clear and needs to be clearer.
And, in fact, what Regional Chief Benedict just mentioned is very concerning for us as First Nations. I also want to mention that we do have a recent history for some of our communities here in what is now called Quebec province that some communities have been moved for some projects in the recent past, and those have really major impacts on the community and on the health of the people who are moved without their consent.
I think this is very concerning, and I’ll stop there.
Senator Simons: I have a separate question for Ms. Schwartz. In terms of threats to wildlife, there would be the threat during construction, which is self-evident, but is there also a unique threat with a high-speed train of ongoing wildlife — you know — and that would be dangerous not just to the wildlife but to the train? What kind of wildlife mitigation would there need to be — fencing, overpasses?
Ms. Schwartz: Both. As you will well know as a senator from Alberta, the Banff park was an area where there were a lot of wildlife collisions along the highway up to Banff. It’s not uncommon when you put in major linear infrastructure that you’re going to face wildlife collisions, and there are well-established mitigation measures. So you can put in things like the wildlife crossings — those are often the overpasses that you will be familiar with in Alberta. Certainly, a lot of the fencing on either side of the roads, we are seeing more and more of that. Again, that may not stop certain species; larger megafauna you would not necessarily be able to stop through the lower fencing. That tends to be more for aquatic species, like turtles and so forth, not to cross. But for larger ones, typically, you want to make sure you’re directing them to the safe passages. So that all needs to be included.
Senator Simons: Because otherwise it is a handy-dandy wildlife corridor.
Ms. Schwartz: Yes.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’m going to ask some questions about expropriation, but first I’d like to look at clause 25 of part 5 of the bill, which contains provisions dealing with the confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge.
[English]
It’s written:
Any Indigenous knowledge that is provided to the Minister, the appropriate Minister or the Corporation in relation to the high-speed rail network in confidence is confidential and must not knowingly be, or be permitted to be, disclosed without written consent.
[Translation]
I’m wondering if you’re comfortable with the wording as is. In addition, I would like to better understand what confidential information about Indigenous peoples needs to be protected by the government in the context of a project like this.
[English]
Mr. Benedict: I can start with that. There are a couple of principles around the confidentiality and collection of data. Let’s not forget that the government has honour of the Crown, duty to consult. These are not just meanings; this is about a relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada. So having legislation that allows them to do everything, pave the way, is about a relationship that is going to start in the negative. I want to put that forward.
Now you are going to believe the partner sitting across from you that they will not divulge confidential information related to First Nations knowledge. Perhaps part of this route may include traditional territory where medicines are cultivated, traditional hunting grounds or ceremonial grounds. This sort of information is not something that communities want the general public to know about, so sharing that information with the government and then divulging it or just having access to it is problematic. So I think that provision in this legislation is quite concerning to our people.
Senator Cormier: Are you saying that the way it’s written is not strong enough to protect the confidentiality? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Benedict: I do think there need to be some revisions in it, absolutely. But it has to embrace, as my colleague said, the principles of OCAP around the collection of this data. I think that there needs to be some serious consideration around how that information is handled. In its current form, it is not acceptable.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Chief Verreault-Paul, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Absolutely.
As the regional chief just mentioned, the OCAP principles I mentioned need to be adhered to. This is very concerning. To answer your question directly, yes, there would definitely need to be a specific amendment for that part. These are elements that refer in particular to many past projects where, too often, unfortunately, the data that was gathered in the field or in collaboration with First Nations did not belong to First Nations.
Now, in this nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship, I think the paradigm has changed, as have rights. For many years, First Nations have had data governance centres that belong to them, that compile very critical data and that also belong to us. It is extremely important that the data belong first and foremost to First Nations. In terms of building together for the future, that’s part of the equation.
Another example is the environmental studies that will be conducted and in which First Nations will want to be involved from the outset. A lot of data will be taken into account in this part as well. It is extremely important that First Nations data be protected in the bill.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
I would now like to come back to the issue of expropriation. I don’t want to make an inappropriate comparison, but we know that in the history of Canada, there have been projects that have involved expropriation. I’m thinking in particular of Kouchibouguac National Park, which scattered many Acadian villages, resulting in a loss of culture and language. You talked about health. I would like to know what you can tell us about the impact of expropriation on the culture and language of Indigenous communities. Are you concerned that they could be undermined by potential expropriations?
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Absolutely. It is concerning in terms of culture and the sense of belonging to the land, but also what happens when you are expropriated. Where will you go? History has shown the impact this has had in our region and in many others where First Nations had to be expropriated from their land. We don’t subscribe to the concept of reserves. The traditional territories are much larger than that. There are concrete impacts, because you create a sense of security and belonging, not to mention develop your culture and language, in connection with the land. This is extremely concerning for the future.
If I may, I would like to quickly come back to the more technical issue brought upby the witness who preceded me. I would like to point out to you that, in Bill C-5, not many amendments based on First Nations recommendations were adopted. However, removing the Indian Act — from Bill C-5, I should mention — was a very important aspect for us, particularly for the reasons listed by the witness I mentioned.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Schwartz, do you have anything you would like to add to that question?
Ms. Schwartz: Yes. I would like to comment that I’m not positioned as an organization that works on conservation to specifically speak to expropriation, but it is important to mention — as you mentioned a national park — that is the unfortunate history of conservation in the country. Both as an organization and as a movement working in conservation, we have had to reconcile with our past history. We recognize that previous parks have been established through the removal of peoples off their lands.
So as we’ve reconciled with that history, we’ve worked, for example, with Wood Buffalo and with the local nation in creating a new process moving forward in terms of how we wish to work with First Nations and other Indigenous communities.
It is an unfortunate and sad history of our country in the establishment of parks, but it is no longer the way that parks and other protected areas are established in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Chief Francis Verreault-Paul.
I would like to get more information about the discussion you started with my colleague Senator Simons. I’m thinking about the map of Quebec. If I understand correctly, high-speed rail will usually try to stick more or less to existing lines. In Quebec, it’s the one that runs north of the St. Lawrence and goes through Trois-Rivières. I’m not saying it will follow it exactly, but it will be around there. After that is the route toward Ottawa. Are there any Indigenous communities or reserves in that long corridor? I don’t think so, but there are Kahnawake and Kanesatake, which don’t seem to be on the route. Can you clarify that for me, since you know the subject better than I do?
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Thank you, senator.
You already have more information than I do on the route. In theory, those discussions take place directly with First Nations. I can’t answer your question because I haven’t seen the actual route.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I haven’t seen it either.
Mr. Verreault-Paul: Even on the potential route, I can’t answer directly because I haven’t seen it.
However, let me remind you of something. Whether the route is on or off reserve, to use those terms, the fact remains that our ancestral territories, which are extremely important, are recognized as belonging to First Nations, meaning everyone who lives on the territory. It doesn’t matter whether the route is on reserve or on ancestral lands. I want to bring you back to the very clear and simple principles that the Government of Canada needs to respect: Consultation and prior and informed consent form the basis of any relationship if we want to build things together. As Regional Chief Benedict mentioned at the outset, we are not against development. We have concerns when rights and principles are not respected. That doesn’t give our First Nations governance structures a chance to consult with our people to also make sure there’s social buy-in. It’s very important to respect those principles.
I’m sorry if I’m not answering your question directly, but I’m going back to the basic principles of consultation and consent.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand very well. You’re right that we don’t know the route. I understand that, for economic reasons, the route in Quebec will largely follow existing railways. I’d like to know concretely if your ancestral territories — and pardon my ignorance — could overlap with railways on the route between Quebec City and Ottawa or if they’re further north.
Mr. Verreault-Paul: I would answer that all of what is now called Quebec City is on ancestral lands. As a result, the proposed route between Quebec City and Ottawa, which goes through Trois-Rivières and Montreal, I believe — I don’t know all the stops — is on the ancestral territories of the First Nations in Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Great, thank you.
Senator Aucoin: My question is for both chiefs.
I’m having trouble reconciling your position. I don’t want to minimize what you said. Your perspective is very important. First, I understand that you are not opposed to a project of this magnitude. However, if I understand correctly, even before this bill, you would have liked to be consulted and to continue to be consulted even before a route is proposed. I’m having a bit of trouble reconciling that. I understand the principle, but to move forward with the project, once the corridor is determined, you will be consulted and all measures will be taken to ensure that your rights are respected. Would that be an appropriate way to do business? If not, what measures do you suggest for moving forward?
Mr. Verreault-Paul: I’ll try to be as clear as possible. I didn’t actually say whether I was for or against the project. It’s not my prerogative to provide a response. It belongs to the First Nations whose territory the high-speed train will run through.
That said, we are here to comment on a bill that raises a number of concerns. This is where questions are asked and red flags are raised about some aspects, including expropriation, consultation and the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations. There’s also respect for data specific to First Nations.
As for the project itself, it is up to the First Nations occupying the territory through which the route will pass to have a say. Today, as far as I’m concerned, it’s more a matter of raising red flags concerning the bill that has been put forward and that has a number of grey areas. They have been identified, and I believe they deserve clear amendments to respect the Constitution Act, but also the rights of First Nations.
I hope that answers your question.
[English]
The Chair: Chief Benedict, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Benedict: Yes, just a few other things. We haven’t said that we want to be consulted ahead of the legislation being put forward. That is not part of our message.
Our message is clear. Like my colleague said, this is an overreach by government. In order to continue to build upon a respectful relationship with the ability to advance projects in a good way, the government cannot have legislation that gives them the ability to override fundamentally important legislation in their back pocket. The approach is completely contrary to fruitful project development. I think that is our message here.
The expropriation gives the government the ability to overextend and expropriate wherever they want. It gives the government the ability to exempt entities — the Crown corporation of the high-speed rail is such an entity — from any federal legislation and obligation that may come from that. That’s a problem.
The Government of Canada has a duty to consult with First Nations. When they start a process, whether it be generally through regulatory or applications for permits, this is the trigger that starts the duty to consult. By giving the government the ability to not have those triggers anymore, it creates a lot of uncertainty. It does not absolve the government of their duty to consult, but this will result in further delays. What is going to happen is that the government will misstep the part where they are supposed to consult because the legislation says they can just go ahead and do it. This will result in a number of significant legal challenges across the country, from Quebec all the way to Ontario.
The government’s objective is to build projects more quickly to ensure that there is certainty around investments, but First Nations’ rights cannot be trampled upon. That will cause uncertainty. That is why we’re here, to raise that issue.
The Chair: Ms. Schwartz, do you have any comment to make?
Ms. Schwartz: I do not.
Senator Arnold: I think most of my questions have actually been answered, but I thank you all for being here and sharing your knowledge with us tonight.
Ms. Schwartz, thank you for recognizing that it is a bold investment in climate change mitigation. We know that the way we travel about is one of the biggest detriments to our climate right now. Sorry, I’m coming from a place of ignorance, but from a data perspective, Ontario and Quebec — no one knows exactly where it’s going — but have those wildlife corridors been mapped? Do you have asset mapping? Is it done around this? Is someone doing it?
Ms. Schwartz: I’m not best placed to answer those questions. I would say, with respect to our chapters in both Ontario and Quebec, we’ll have more information, and I would certainly encourage the committee to consult directly with those chapters.
The route decisions made do need to be made with the strongest available science and Traditional Knowledge. What we have heard so far is that there is the potential of a route that would follow — at least, in the Ontario portion — around Highway 7. Highway 7 is problematic because there are a number of wetlands along that route. It is probably more complicated logistically to do that route, as well.
One thing I will say is that, unlike the corridor of the existing CN network, that corridor would actually go through, relatively, what would be called greenfield. So, yes, there are lots of local organizations that know quite a bit about the habitats and species that might live in those areas. The issue is that because it’s greenfield and not industrialized already, you are going to be encountering species. You’re going to be encountering habitats where the species have not already learned to move about in a bisected environment.
In that situation, you are likely to be encountering significantly more problems with wildlife and just with the habitats themselves, not to even mention whether species at risk might be found in those regions, as well. It’s fairly well known with species at risk where those habitats are, but, again, when it’s greenfield, those are not always that well established.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, everyone, for being here.
We had Alto here, and they explained that there isn’t an exact route right now. The discussion we’re having tonight is kind of steering my questions and whatnot. Last year, through Bill S-13, we embedded the non-derogation clause in the Interpretation Act. To me, that’s a very important piece because it says that section 35 rights and Aboriginal rights are not only to be upheld but to not be diminished. That’s an overlay of all legislation and regulatory work that the government does. Where I’m going with all of that is that one of those rights in section 35 is consultation.
Alto talked about their organization. They have got 500 people. They talked about experts from Europe or wherever who have done high-speed rail. Shouldn’t we be encouraging Alto — I’m thinking of our report back, with observations — shouldn’t they at least have First Nations representatives from an area — they’ve got to have an idea where they are going; it may not be down to the precise kilometre, but they’ve got to have a corridor in mind. You just mentioned Highway 7. Shouldn’t they have First Nations at the get-go so that as they are planning the route, they have better information about where to move it? Would that be something that would be a step forward in respecting the Interpretation Act?
Mr. Benedict: Yes. I believe the entity, Alto, will work within the confines they are given, but the minister has a role, and as to expropriation, it would be the minister who would be doing that. Obviously, their advice would be where the route is.
But I do think they have a good team working there. They are setting up their system to advance this project, and I believe they can achieve it without having the legislative ability to expropriate land and the minister sidestepping key legislation and expropriating.
Senator Quinn: We also talked about this going through two provinces and that the acting bodies at paragraph 92(10)(c) of the Constitution — the declaratory power causes the federal government to assume the jurisdiction. In terms of assuming jurisdiction — because Ontario has its laws and regulations, and Quebec has its laws and jurisdictions — is that a progressive step in terms of having a single entity provide that leadership over a project, ensuring, of course, they do the things they are supposed to do relevant to section 35 rights?
Mr. Benedict: I can only speak from a First Nations perspective. I think that it’s all the same: The government is the government, whether it be the Government of Ontario, Government of Quebec or the federal government. The provinces probably have their own opinions on the government’s overreach, as well, and I would encourage you to speak to them.
But for First Nations, the pathway forward is having the communities at the table from the beginning and not with the ultimate threat of being able to do expropriation if need be.
Senator Quinn: Have First Nations been consulted, as far as you’re aware? Have there been any discussions at all, even preliminary?
Mr. Benedict: The 133 communities I support in my region are having various conversations with them. Whether that’s consultation, I do believe it’s relationship building at this point.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: We have had a fulsome discussion. We have a time limitation, so I would like to thank our witnesses for your presence, questions and thoughts, which will help us. Clearly, there seems to be a real opportunity, just from an observer’s perspective, of building relationships. Building relationships is sometimes a case of timing, too. There is a great opportunity for people to pull back a bit and then for both sides to create trust. There needs to be trust from the start of the relationship, so lots of things to consider in terms of our thought process.
Thank you so much for coming to see us, on behalf of all of us.
I would like to now introduce our next panel: Drew Spoelstra, President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and Matti Siemiatycki, Professor of Geography and Planning and Director of the Infrastructure Institute, University of Toronto.
It’s very nice to speak with you, and we look forward to your comments. Thank you for joining us today. Witnesses, you will be provided five minutes for your opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with our senators.
I now invite Mr. Spoelstra to give his opening remarks.
Drew Spoelstra, President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, senators and members of the committee. My name is Drew Spoelstra, and I am the President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, or OFA, representing more than 38,000 members and farm families across Ontario. I farm near Hamilton with my family.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today as you consider the proposed high-speed rail network act included in Bill C-15 and its implications. My remarks focus on the interests of farmers directly affected by existing and future rail infrastructure and the need for strong safeguards and meaningful consultation.
First, regarding the need for meaningful consultation, OFA works to ensure that the agri-food sector is considered in any legislation that affects farmland, farm operations or the long-term sustainability of rural communities. With respect to the proposed high-speed rail project named Alto, which aims to build a 1,000-kilometre network between Toronto and Quebec City, we have been informed that Alto intends to conduct open houses in early 2026, and we appreciate their intent. But affected farmers will require much more than open houses. Farmland owners work hard to maintain, enhance and earn a living from their lands to support their families, grow our economy and feed millions of people around the world.
Laws and regulations need to set out clear railway obligations and protect neighbouring landowners. Railways should not be allowed to interpret their responsibilities to landowners when it comes to fencing, private grade crossings, drainage and property access.
On fencing requirements, historically, railways provided a boundary fence. More recently, railways have refused to repair or replace boundary fences, even when livestock can breach the fence and get out on the railway tracks. We know safety risks increase significantly with trains travelling at faster speeds.
We recommend that the federal government create regulations under the Railway Safety Act requiring railway companies to build boundary fencing at their own expense when requested by abutting landowners. This will protect livestock, prevent accidents and increase public safety.
Regarding safe and accessible crossings, agriculture relies on an uninterrupted land base. Fragmentation caused by rail corridors can make farms less viable or even unusable. Where farmland must be divided, railways should be required to provide safe, private grade crossings at the railways’ expense. In some cases, crossings may require gates, lights or grade separation and elevated sections to meet safety standards and minimize the impact to private properties.
Farmers also have the right to the enjoyment of their property. Any rail project — including high-speed rail — must be implemented in a way that respects these rights and avoids creating stranded land or inaccessible parcels. When division is unavoidable, full compensation for injurious affection and expropriation impacts is essential.
On drainage rights and responsibilities, proper drainage is fundamental to agricultural productivity. Flooded or waterlogged soils cannot grow crops. Historically, railways have recognized their drainage obligations under Ontario’s Drainage Act. However, more recently, some federally regulated railways have challenged these long-standing obligations.
OFA was pleased that the acting Ontario Drainage Referee granted OFA intervenor status in a court case between the municipality of Chatham-Kent and the Canadian Pacific Railway. OFA brought forward the relevant perspective of Ontario farmers with respect to drainage. In October 2025, the Ontario Court of the Drainage Referee ruled that federal railways are subject to Ontario’s Drainage Act. However, we understand that Canadian Pacific Railway intends to appeal this decision at the Divisional Court.
We recommend clarifying in federal legislation that railways must comply with provincial drainage laws and remain responsible for the drainage infrastructure that benefits both the railway and adjacent farmland.
On maintenance and compatibility with farm operations, railway maintenance activities can temporarily restrict private crossing access. Clear communication and coordination with landowners must be required to ensure maintenance activities do not interrupt agricultural operations.
Concerning expropriation, Bill C-15 introduces or adjusts several powers that can deeply affect farmers, including expropriation, rights of first refusal and ministerial authority to prohibit work on subject lands. These powers must be exercised with extreme care, as they have considerable potential to disrupt farm businesses and should not be looked at and used as a regular tool of government at any level.
Farm businesses are not easily relocated. Barns, drainage systems, land improvements and soil quality cannot be moved or replicated elsewhere. Dividing a farm property may make the farm business unviable, even if relocation compensation is received. OFA urges the federal government to ensure that any exercise of these powers is transparent, fair and justified and that full compensation is provided.
In closing, Ontario’s farms generate billions of dollars in economic activity and anchor our rural communities. They produce food, steward the landscape and support a resilient provincial economy. We recognize that major transportation projects are needed and can bring public benefits, but they must not come at the expense of the long-term viability of agriculture. Exploring all possibilities, like elevated tracks, utilizing existing transportation and energy corridors, may be viable options that minimize the overall impact on farmers and farmland.
By establishing clear regulatory requirements, ensuring meaningful consultation and maintaining farmers’ rights to drainage, crossings, fencing and fair compensation, Canada can pursue infrastructure development while safeguarding one of our most important and irreplaceable resources: our farmland.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spoelstra.
Dr. Siemiatycki, you’re up.
Matti Siemiatycki, Professor, Geography and Planning and Director, Infrastructure Institute, University of Toronto, as an individual: Thank you very much for the invitation. It is great to be with you all. Good evening.
Let me start with some more general comments, and then I’ll be a bit more specific about the bill.
While I’m a big supporter of public transit and high-speed rail, in this case, I am not convinced that this project is the highest priority for Canada given other urgent areas in need of investment, such as access to health care, providing clean drinking water to all Indigenous communities, funding for affordable housing and increased spending on national defence. I’m sorry to be a bit of the stinker in the room tonight.
Even within the transportation portfolio, there are far more impactful ways to spend the $60 billion to $90 billion it is currently estimated it will cost to build this new high-speed rail line.
While it is projected the high-speed rail line will carry 10.3 million passenger trips per year by 2050, according to the recent McGill University study, Canada’s cash-starved urban transit systems together presently carry that number of passengers in a matter of days. More Canadians and visitors to the country are affected by the difficulties getting around within rather than between Canadian cities, and improving urban transit systems will have a greater impact on the lives of Canadians and the economy.
To date, no comprehensive business case has been released by the Government of Canada that provides a public accounting of the project’s benefits and costs. The question is not whether high-speed rail is a good or bad idea. Of course, it would be great. The question is whether it provides better benefits at lower cost than all the alternatives for this vast amount of public resources, especially given that the recent McGill University study on the project estimates that it will require massive subsidies for decades to come.
Despite my reservations about the project overall, the high-speed rail project is now advancing. While there is still a long way to go before approval, if the project is going to proceed, I would like to contribute my expertise to its success. This is why I agreed to serve on the Policy Innovation Lab of academics, an independent committee of academic advisers to Alto on the project planning and delivery.
The reason is really because the risks of catastrophic cost overruns and delays in high-speed rail projects are ever present, and the impacts are profound. Current high-speed rail projects being built in California and Britain are tens of billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. This would be a huge impact on Canada if something similar happened here.
Given the high stakes, it is essential that proactive measures are taken to minimize project risks. Land acquisition has been an area where major rail projects have been bogged down and costs have risen, including the California and British high-speed rail projects.
While Bill C-15 provides Alto with stronger tools to enable efficient land acquisition, it does not require their pre-emptive or aggressive usage. Expropriation is one of the most significant infringements on property rights a government can undertake. Alto can and should, first and foremost, make every effort to acquire land through negotiated agreements with landowners, with expropriation as a last resort. That provides a greater level of certainty that land can be acquired in a timely manner.
Further, the enhanced land acquisition powers create an even more significant duty for early, ongoing meaningful consultation with Indigenous rights holders as well as private landowners and stakeholders along the route to ensure that all parties are informed and their input can improve the project.
Going forward, my suggestion is that Alto and the government produce a comprehensive business case to settle once and for all that the benefits of the project outweigh the costs, relative to all the other ways that these scarce resources could be spent. As for the project delivery, this project will proceed with the best chance of success if consultation, collaboration and respectful relationships between the project planners and impacted communities are central to the approach. Meaningful early and ongoing consultation and collaboration with First Nations, landowners and stakeholders to learn from local knowledge and find collective solutions are necessary to enhance the land acquisition process.
Other strategies include providing landowners with the right to repurchase any expropriated land that is not used and policies to pay landowners with a fair price, not just the lowest price.
If this project is going to go forward, there are strategies that could be used. I think this bill provides important tools that should be used as a last resort rather than the first option to get this project done. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Moving forward now, let’s get Senator Lewis to open it up with questions.
Senator Lewis: Thank you to the witnesses. My first question is to Mr. Spoelstra.
When we talk about the expropriation powers that are going to be built into this new act, in reading about them — that they are based loosely on some of the existing provincial practices — in the province of Ontario, to your knowledge, how does expropriation work, and have there been projects that have had to expropriate farmland in recent history?
Mr. Spoelstra: Thank you for the question. Through you, Mr. Chair, the Province of Ontario does use expropriation powers from time to time. Typically, they have been for projects that are part of the greater good, things such as hospitals, major projects in a municipality and road expansion.
There have been some recent cases where the threat of expropriation has been used inappropriately, and we’ve been disappointed in that. We certainly have a position that if they’re talking about agriculture and farmland, they need to ensure that the compensation is adequate, that they take into account the whole agriculture system and the whole picture in that area where they are trying to expropriate that land, and, obviously, we would like to see agreements made based on the value of that land instead of going down the expropriation route and that farmers are treated fairly and adequately through that process.
Senator Lewis: Professor, you talked about planning and everything, and with what has happened in the past and what you’ve looked at in the California system and the troubles in England, as they try and put the land together, should that be the first step before they go further down the road, or should there be a certain percentage of land that can be put together to form the route before some of the other planning goes forward?
I’m thinking about First Nations, specifically, if they can’t make agreements or if it’s going to be held up. For heaven’s sake, we probably shouldn’t be going forward with the project if they can’t get the land right to start with.
Mr. Siemiatycki: The early consultation with First Nations that came up in the previous panel is critical to get a sense that this is going to be feasible and that they build trusting relationships, because that has been one of the areas where if you can build those trusting relationships, projects have better chances of success.
When it comes to expropriation and land acquisition, what we found in past projects is there are actually two risks. There is risk on both sides, to put it differently. There are risks that you acquire the land too early, and then the project doesn’t go forward, and you are stuck with very expensive land. That has happened in Canada. There is also the risk that you go too late, and, at that point, the land is more expensive or it’s harder to acquire, and it takes longer, so it delays the project and the costs go up. Both of those have happened here in Canada and abroad.
I think having this tool in the tool box is useful, but it has to be used with extreme care, as a last resort, rather than something that is waved around as a strategy to accelerate the project.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Mr. Spoelstra, up until quite recently, I was the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture, where I worked closely with my colleague Rob Black. My association with Rob really heightened my understanding of how much really fertile farmland in Ontario is vulnerable to being taken over by suburban sprawl.
An issue you didn’t raise in your testimony is what happens to the value of land alongside the tracks. We had a witness yesterday who testified that the only way to make this economically viable is for there to be infill housing along the route because that land will be more valuable for housing because people will be able to commute.
Has your group given any consideration to the potential knock-on effects of taking prime agricultural land out of production if people start using the rail right-of-way as an inspiration to build housing and commercial development along the route?
Mr. Spoelstra: Thank you for the question, senator. It is an interesting perspective that the individual brought forward. My understanding of how the high-speed rail project would work is that there are a minimal number of stops, so you wouldn’t have this collection of stops along the way where that would necessarily cause infill and additional housing.
You’re absolutely right on the critical importance of land loss across much of southwestern Ontario. We have a finite amount of arable land in Ontario. About 5% of our land is available for farm and food production, so we value it greatly. We do whatever we can to talk about better land-use planning going forward in the future. Part of that is building around transit corridors and building better transit systems so that we can utilize those better and build housing where it’s needed.
Again, it’s an interesting perspective that was brought forward. I don’t necessarily see it being as much of an issue, and I would say in my conversations with municipal leaders across eastern Ontario, that hasn’t necessarily been something they brought forward to me either.
Senator Simons: I don’t know if you were listening to the last group of witnesses. I asked Ms. Schwartz from CPAWS a question about animals crossing the tracks. I was thinking about bears and deer, but you’re making me think about cows and other herd animals that might get onto the tracks. Those old-fashioned steam trains had cowcatchers. This would be more like a “cow slicer,” I would imagine.
It’s dangerous not only to livestock that gets loose but also to rail passengers. What kind of fencing would be required? Do you think the farmers should have any obligation to cost-share that, or should that fall exclusively on the rail system?
Mr. Spoelstra: I believe the cost should definitely fall on the rail system, as it should for current railway systems. We do have challenges, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that railways are looking to divest themselves of some of the costs in their systems and looking for others to pay for those costs. We certainly have challenges with that.
You’re right; they didn’t call them cowcatchers for nothing when they created the railways back in the day, but certainly it is a challenge faced by high-speed rail networks. There is absolutely minimal access, in my understanding of those projects, to the railway network from side to side. They need strong, high fencing for livestock, wildlife and people.
That is one of the struggles we have with this type of a system across the countryside: You’re not really set up for level grade crossings, and it could split farms in half or less than half so you have a piece at the back of the farm that isn’t viable or usable or you can’t access within an hour’s drive of farm equipment, things like that.
That’s why I talked a bit about advocating for elevated tracks so that you can cross under them instead of over them and so that wildlife can do the same, livestock and pastures, things like that.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Mr. Siemiatycki.
I was interested to hear you say that there was no business case for this project because, after all, this is Canada. We don’t have a large population, and it is clear that rail projects are hardly profitable. This is not Europe. Are you saying that we shouldn’t be able to take anything other than a car or a plane to travel in that corridor? It doesn’t seem aberrant to me to take a high-speed train. Does that mean that we have to give up on the high-speed rail project? At the same time, the earth is warming and people are trying to use transportation that produces less greenhouse gas. How do you reconcile all that?
[English]
Mr. Siemiatycki: I agree with you on the climate change impacts. My question with all of this is, does this project deliver the best climate benefit of all the ways we could spend the money?
Keep in mind, for example, the Toronto Transit Commission moves 2.4 million trips per day, and the Montreal system, last time I checked, was between 1.4 million and 1.7 million per day. Then you have Ottawa, Quebec City, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton. What type of climate benefit could we get if we invested $70 billion into our urban transit and moved people out of the cars they drive every single day to get to their jobs, not least of which is the embodied carbon in building a system of this nature? There is a lot of concrete and steel that’s going to go into this project that has to be recouped if you think of it as a return on investment from ridership. And ridership of 10 million per year in 2050 that was estimated by the McGill study is a tiny number. We have bus routes that are moving more people per day than that. We have bus routes where people are sitting in mixed traffic behind single-occupant vehicles turning left, waiting to move that number of people every year.
What would give you a better climate benefit if you’re only trying to optimize for climate: building this megaproject or investing in urban transit, let alone all the other places you can invest this $60 billion to $90 billion? To me, that is the real question, and we haven’t seen a study that actually breaks that down.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m a little puzzled because you are comparing cities where we have a lot of people as opposed to traffic between cities that is necessary. If not a train, what is it that we would use to go from city to city? Obviously, in a big city, you can make a business case because there are more people, but we live in a country that’s very wide and not very populated.
Mr. Siemiatycki: You’re exactly right; we are a big country, and we are going to spend $60 billion to $90 billion to connect five or six big cities in one tiny fraction of this big country. After spending all of this money, anyone west of Toronto is getting no improvement, which is a big part of the country, and the entire Maritimes are getting no improvement either, whereas we could be spending this money, spreading it out and delivering better mobility right across the country.
I think in terms of the intercity mobility, there are so many things, like dedicated bus ways to make the buses move faster at a much lower cost. This isn’t going to be cheap. It’s not like you’re moving for the cost of a transit token. This is going to be expensive transportation, and we could be making the buses move much faster and improving the existing VIA Rail service. If you do need to get to where you need to go quickly, we could also be making it faster to move through security at the airports. For people who need it, you don’t have to get there two hours earlier; you can get there an hour or 45 minutes earlier. All of that can be done at a much lower cost than what’s being proposed here, which is a hugely expensive megaproject.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Great. Thank you for your arguments.
[English]
Senator Mohamed: Thank you for all of the comments. I feel like I’ve just had a tutorial on high-speed rail and what it can and cannot do.
I’m interested in the compensation model around farmland. In a previous life, I worked with a company that was looking at trees, and one of the issues was true market value plus generational value. If you think about the loss of land and the compensation model, do you have any reflections on what that model should look like that would take into consideration market value but also generational — I’ll put it as generational loss because that is essentially what it is. Any reflection on what that kind of model should look like?
Mr. Spoelstra: Thanks for the question.
Ultimately, every situation is going to be different. We were chatting before about, depending on where a farm gets split, if the back half of that farm isn’t viable or accessible, it’s not worth as much at that point for that farmer to sell, but it is certainly still worth a lot to his or her business.
It’s difficult to give you a solid answer on that. It also depends on the soil type, quality of land for food and farm production and the route itself. I’m not sure I can give you a complete answer on that right now.
Senator Cormier: My question goes to the professor. I understand your arguments. I’ll tell you first that I come from the Maritimes, so the expression that Senator Simons used about the cow slicer could not certainly be used when I take the train between Bathurst and Montreal, because it takes me 14 hours. I don’t know what the name would be.
But what I understand from your arguments, which I follow — and we didn’t hear about those issues. When I look at the McGill document, it says, “Public sentiment strongly supports the view that . . .” the train “. . . would be a transformative project for Canada.” And there are a lot of arguments around the plus value of this project.
But your point of view around climate change and all that, are there any groups that were consulted that brought forward those arguments, which I can follow? What can you tell us besides your personal position? Because it seems it’s a project that everyone wants. People are worried; they have preoccupations, but they still want this project. They think it is a good thing for Canada. We can name the train “cow slicer.” Professor, can you comment on this?
Mr. Siemiatycki: Thanks for the question.
The first thing, if you look at how the data was collected from the survey, it was collected in the six cities that the train is going to stop in. Of course, people in those areas are going to say this is great. What about all the other people in the rest of Canada who are not getting access to this train?
This survey to understand the benefits of this is important, and the response depends on the question you ask. If the question is, “Are you in favour of high-speed rail?,” I would say, “Yes, of course.” If the question is, “Are you in favour of high-speed rail instead of 6 million Canadians having access to a family doctor?,” I’m not sure the answer to that question is yes. And if you asked me, “Are you in favour of high-speed rail instead of being able to get to your job efficiently on public transit that’s currently not available?,” again, I’m not sure the answer to that question is yes. So there is a methodology question there.
And about your environmental questions, my colleague Shoshanna Saxe does research at the University of Toronto on embodied carbon. That’s how much energy goes into producing this. For high-speed rail, this is going to require heavy tracks with a lot of concrete, overhead gantries and wires to ensure it runs on electricity, presumably. That is a lot of upfront energy.
You need very high ridership in order to offset the trade-offs of people switching from flights, in particular. You need high ridership, and 10.8 million riders per year — as this study forecasts by 2050 — is not a huge number. That’s a bus route; that’s a light-rail line. That is really not a huge number, especially when you spread that out over the entire country.
I guess my point is this: At the end of the day, is this the place to sink a huge amount of our public resource when we have so many different needs in this country? At the very least, we need a viable cost-benefit study that proves this is the best way to proceed.
Senator Cormier: I guess you were not consulted, or you didn’t have any conversation with the federal government on this, have you?
Mr. Siemiatycki: As I mentioned, I’ve been involved with Alto. That’s the irony of that whole situation. I give them credit for bringing someone in who has been very public. I have been on CBC saying this. I have been all over saying this. My view is known. I give them credit for bringing me in and giving me an opportunity to share these views to try to hopefully strengthen the project. That is ultimately my goal here. If this is going to go forward, I would like it to be designed, developed and delivered in the best way possible.
But I do think we need a cost-benefit study that really, in detail, does all the accounting of what this is going to cost and what its benefits are in order for us to make a decision of this magnitude. We should not be moving forward just on the idea that we’re the only G7 country without this. We need to move forward based on solid and sound evidence.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: My question is for Mr. Spoelstra.
In my former career, I was a lawyer. As soon as this project is built, you know that it will be a national company. The provincial legislation on drainage you talked about will not apply to that corridor. Did you consider that? I really appreciated your comments on that, because I hadn’t thought about it. It is true that water flow is important and that there is a case before the courts now. Do you intend to comment? Do you have any comments about what happens with drainage once the project is declared to be of national interest?
[English]
Mr. Spoelstra: Thank you for the question around drainage. Certainly, it has been top of mind for us and farmers across southwestern Ontario, specifically with this challenge we have had in Chatham-Kent. It has affected farmers across Ontario, whether it’s drainage, fencing or the level grade private crossings that have been removed in the past.
The concern around provincial laws — I agree on the nation-building side of things. There might be more of a federal scope to the whole program, and that’s why we advocated to strengthen federal regulations around railway safety, rights for property owners, the whole issue of access to property and how farmers can be part of this overall conversation around railway safety and regulations.
Senator Arnold: I honestly think that most of my questions have been answered, but I wanted to thank you for being here tonight. I never thought of drainage before, and I grew up with a tobacco field in my backyard and, ironically, a rail line. It’s just kind of interesting how these things are around us, and we don’t even really think about it.
My question tonight is for the professor. I thank you so much for bringing your interesting perspective and for standing up and stepping up to do hard work when you don’t necessarily really believe in it. Do you feel that you’re making progress in getting your point across, and do you foresee there being a business case prepared at some point?
Mr. Siemiatycki: Thank you for the question; I really appreciate it. I feel this is a personal commitment to the country. This is so important. I have two kids. I look at my children. This is debt they’re going to have to pay, and their kids and their grandkids are going to pay. This is a huge deal.
I think that people are listening. At the very least, I think they have heard my concerns. The fact that Alto has brought me in and listened, I give them a lot of credit for this. They could have stonewalled; they could have tried to use PR spin. They have not done that. They brought me in and said, “Let’s talk about this.” I hope what that leads to is a real detailed business case about the costs and benefits, and not just the costs and benefits of the project, but relative to the other ways that the money can be spent. That’s the key.
If you ask me if I want high-speed rail in Canada, of course I do. I love travelling and using high-speed rail. The question is, knowing everything I know about all the other issues, about water in Indigenous communities, about transit, about all the other areas we could be spending the money, is this the best place?
I very much hope one of the recommendations that comes out of your committee is, “Let us see that study.” Do that study in a detailed way, based on the project that’s being proposed, and let’s make sure this is really viable. Let’s not let our hopes and dreams for a project that, frankly, I would love — I love high-speed rail — but let’s make sure we are doing it based on evidence, not aspirations.
Senator Quinn: My question is for Mr. Spoelstra. Where we’re heading is towards a regime where the federal government will be able to expropriate land and take away property owners’ rights with respect to not being able to build on the lands they want to expropriate for a period of time. That must cause concerns among your members.
The second part of the question is you mentioned there are thoughts out there — and no doubt — that the high-speed rail line will cut the farm in half or a third, rendering the other section not usable. That must be a concern with respect to the longevity of farms. Farms are disappearing at an overly rapid pace in Canada. We talked about the Agriculture Committee that my colleague was co-chair of, and they have done a lot of things around soil health and food sustainability and all those types of things. Should we not be concerned about the things that I have talked about? Is there too much of an overreach here in terms of expropriating but preventing work from being done, and then maybe loss of land, loss of farms?
Mr. Spoelstra: I think, ultimately, what we want as farmers and rural landowners is the opportunity to be consulted. We don’t want the constant threat of expropriation hung over us. That tool has always existed, at least in Ontario, as I mentioned before, to expropriate land for projects to the common good. I think, in some ways, this would kind of fit that bill.
But we need to make sure that we are having more than just some open houses with Alto. We are having significant conversations among ourselves, with the farm community across eastern Ontario and Quebec as well. We’re talking about the soil health in those regions, about the value of that land, about the production capacity of that land. I don’t speak for Quebec farmers, but certainly when you look at the land along the St. Lawrence, where this potential railway corridor could be, there is pretty valuable land in that area, for sure.
We want to make sure that everybody is on the same page here, that farmers and landowners are treated fairly, that they have that opportunity to give that input and that we build something, potentially, down the road where we can say we looked at all the options; this is the best place to put it. These are the mitigation strategies we have put in place to protect farmland. We have done the agriculture impact assessments. We want to be able to say that agriculture is going to be less impacted if we take this route versus this route over here.
There are some tools in place where I think we can do those things and get to a good, common end result. But just streamlining every process along the way isn’t going to get us to that path. We need to do those adequate consultations along the way and make sure that we’re protecting farms as much as we can and not cutting them in half, as you say.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
Senator Lewis: This question is for both witnesses. In my experience when we talk about major projects, this one is different. This project literally will split not just farms in half, but the entire two provinces; the portions that it goes through will be split in half. We’re talking about a rail line that is going to have fences down both sides of it for probably the whole 1,000-kilometre route just for wildlife. You can’t have animals on the tracks. A train going 200 miles an hour can’t have a speed bump. That’s the reality.
I would just like your opinion on this: Compared to other projects that have happened, this one is different, without question, as far as the impacts that we’ll see both short term and long term.
Mr. Spoelstra: I would that’s an accurate statement. I mean, you are going to split farms and communities. You’re going to cause a lot of angst out there, I think, in different parts of the world. But you’re also going to create something that could potentially have a lot of public good. When it comes to carbon emissions and things like that, it could be good for that.
I mean, I’m not a huge advocate of flying, but I flew here tonight and I reminded myself why I usually drive, because you sit at an airport for a couple of hours and sit on a plane for a couple of hours, and there is delay after delay. That’s why I get in my car, and I am my own boss at that point. This is potentially a new avenue to take. Again, I go back to the consultation piece. We need to make sure that municipalities are on board, that agriculture stakeholders are on board, that we have mitigation strategies for things like EMS so that we’re not cutting off communities, and that everyone has that ability to have the services they need in a certain area.
Mr. Siemiatycki: Just to echo that point, when it comes to high-speed rail, the tracks need to be straighter — I’m sure you have heard this from other witnesses. In order to get to high speeds safely, the tracks need to be straighter. It does mean there is less opportunity to make detours around whatever is in the way, whether it’s wildlife or communities or a barn or whatever. For that reason, I complete agree; the consultation up front to really do the due diligence and plan this route carefully will be key to making sure that it can proceed smoothly.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Professor Siemiatycki, it is absolutely true that it would probably make more sense to invest in small prudent projects, but it didn’t make any sense to build a railway from Ontario to the Pacific Ocean either. But I think we have to accept the fact that this is not just a transportation project. This is an aspirational project designed not just to reduce carbon emissions by taking people off of airplanes and out of cars but also to, sort of, give us a sense of national pride and national vision that maybe this is the template that leads to high-speed rail from Edmonton to Calgary or from Vancouver to Calgary, although that would be crazier.
I’m just wondering; I understand that it doesn’t actually make sense, but given that it doesn’t make sense, what is your role as an adviser to make sure that it gets done with the least amount of waste possible?
Mr. Siemiatycki: I love how you framed that. I spent a whole career studying the symbolic benefits and impacts of megaprojects. I think the way you put that is exactly right. When we deliver megaprojects, sure, part of this is about the tangible benefits, and then there are always intangibles. There are always intangibles about the reasons that all states do big projects. Some of the ones you articulated are exactly right.
My big question would be, is that what is worth spending $60 billion to $90 billion? When I say there are alternatives, I don’t necessarily mean those are small projects. They could be seven $10-billion projects. A $10-billion project is still a big undertaking. It would be one of the biggest projects in the country.
Senator Simons: This committee last year did a big study about infrastructure and climate mitigation, infrastructure that is vulnerable to climate. I’m seeing on the news tonight that the Sumas Prairie is about to flood again in British Columbia, and the dike works there are completely insufficient to protect Abbotsford and Sumas Prairie from flooding. The Chignecto Isthmus, as Senator Quinn will tell you anytime you give him the opportunity, is at risk of sinking into the sea. There are all kinds of things we could fix for several billions of dollars. But this government wants to do this. This budget is giving them money to do this. So what is your advice to help them do this better?
Mr. Siemiatycki: Use your head and your heart. I understand the power of nation building. We are in a moment where we are under multiple threats and under a lot of pressure, and big projects that bring people together are important, and transportation is a connector. I think I understand that impulse.
But when this moment passes, and when our kids get the bill for this project, I think it’s so important that we can at least say to them, “We did the due diligence; we did the proper studies; we determined that it is better for everyone if we build this project, not just for our aspirations but also for real tangible benefits.” Because, as you mentioned, all of those other projects would be so worthwhile to their local communities, too.
I see my role as being both a challenge function, honestly, someone who asks hard questions, because one of the things we know about infrastructure is there are optimism biases and anchoring. Those are two behavioural phenomena that come along with megaprojects. People get anchored to the initial plan, and then they have optimism biases that they will be able to deliver it better than anyone else. I would ask people to think, to question.
I mean, the people in California, who had these same sorts of aspirations when they started their project, how are they feeling about a project that may not even ultimately reach its ultimate conclusion of the route that was planned? The same thing happened in Britain, where they took a second look at it. The line was supposed to go from London to Manchester, but it’s stopping in Birmingham because they looked at the numbers and just said, “We can’t go on anymore. This just isn’t working.”
Being really hard-headed now about the delivery of this project is key. I hope my role is to provide that challenge function and just keep asking questions so that everything is well considered.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: First, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank all the witnesses who have appeared this evening. I think there’s a lot of content, and it will help us think this through.
I especially want to thank you and reiterate my colleague Senator Arnold’s message about your importance as a citizen in defending your position before a committee like this. We need to face up to our convictions, our wishes and our aspirations as senators. I think you eloquently show how it’s possible to be a responsible citizen who is open to potential change while asking the right questions. Thank you so much for that. You have brought a lot of content and food for thought to our debate, sir. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: We have come to the end of our time for questions. I would like to thank both of our witnesses, Mr. Spoelstra and Dr. Siemiatycki.
Mr. Siemiatycki: You went two for three tonight.
The Chair: I know. The coach always asked me when I got knocked out if I could still play, and I always said yes, but I shouldn’t have.
Can I ask you folks a simple question just as a follow-up? You can send this back to us in writing — at maximum, a one-pager. What are your three key issues that you’re going to give back to us that should be fundamental in terms of making any recommendations to the government in power at this particular time? Could you do that for us? Mr. Spoelstra, could you do that? Doctor, could you do that? Could you get that back to us by, say, the first Tuesday or Wednesday in January? Could you do that for us?
Mr. Siemiatycki: Absolutely.
The Chair: We don’t want to put too much pressure on you to do something in three days, as we have done to every other witness. We would really appreciate that.
We wish you a happy holiday. We thank you and are intending to wait for your three key issues to help us continue looking at this project. Thank you again.
Mr. Siemiatycki: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)