Yes, I'm going to talk about the subamendment, Mr. Chair. Thank you for reminding me.
The reason for my preamble is that, when I heard that we should not be talking about high-speed rail in the context of this subamendment, I took issue with that. The issue of the high-speed rail project is relevant insofar as Alto was mandated to carry out this project. It's like talking about a tree's leaves without talking about the tree. If there's no high-speed rail, there's no motion, no subamendment, none of it.
So yes, I'll talk about the subamendment, but I'll also talk about high-speed rail, because it's directly related to Alto. High-speed rail is a topic I'm very familiar with. I was president of the Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Québec, and we did surveys, carried out interviews and met with stakeholders. I gave speeches on the subject and conducted research on its impact on both the country and the Quebec City region. All of this is directly related to Alto. I take issue with the idea that it has nothing to do with the subamendment.
I'm going to continue to talk about the subamendment and about Alto, and I'll talk about high-speed rail. I have my notes here, because I worked at the Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Québec for four years.
On April 18, 2023, leaders from the Quebec City region, myself included, along with 15 signatories, wrote a letter about high-speed rail. It stated, among other things, that the distance between Quebec City and Montreal could be covered in under an hour.