Maybe I'll add some more thoughts on that.
So you've come up with the long-term vision. You say the long-term vision is to create an integrated rail transportation network, high-speed, that will run in major corridors and then will be extended as demand can be justified. That also means you have to look at it in terms of a strategic transportation infrastructure perspective, the same as you do with marine, highways, and airports. So it has to be put on the same footing as those major building blocks at the federal level.
You can't be thinking it's just trains, so we won't worry about that; it's like a little operating company, VIA. You really have to say no, this is on the same basis as our national highway program, so it should have the same level of intensity, same level of funding on an annual basis. If you look at what you're spending on highways and compare that to what you're spending on rail, there's absolutely no comparison.
The other thing is that you have a P3 approach on capital programs right now, on major infrastructure. There's no reason why you can't do that in this area as well. It fits very well. The risks to you as the project owner are very large if you try to micro-manage all the little pieces, while if you can capture that risk in a large contract and you pass that off to somebody else.... Look at OPG and how much they're spending on this bloody tunnel. They have a construction program, but they didn't transfer that geo-technical risk to the private sector. I'm not saying we all want that geo-technical risk. That's not actually our field. That's for the contractors, the civil guys.
I think you have to think in those terms—how it fits into the broader federal transportation structure—and then build from there. This also fits into what the other overlapping elements are in this. There is environmental and safety, and really those are big things. There are greenhouse gas emissions. I don't see any money for greenhouse gas emissions from the Ministry of the Environment focused on trains. There's nothing.
Is there an incentive even for CN and VIA Rail to move away from diesel to electric? I don't see anything in that area, even for them to study this in a serious way. Yet they're still going to have the same issues.
Regarding the standards we use here, we look at the Americans and say this FRA is everything. In fact, FRA is very interesting and it meets the needs of the Americans, but the rest of the world follows the European standards. European standards, if anything, have higher levels of safety because they take a different approach. Instead of saying everything is based on the physical limitations of vehicles when they have collisions, they say it's about how we can reduce risks, how we structure it so there aren't collisions. They take a more risk-management approach. You have to look at risk management from a rail safety perspective.