I'm aware that there are government commitments to fund rail infrastructure improvements in southern Ontario. The funding source, in those cases, is general revenue.
I would assume that the Conservatives are not trying to play favourites in terms of who gets what funding. These are the most pressing, I guess, because these are passenger rail services and freight rail services that have now collapsed as a result of rail infrastructure. The government has promised I think $175 million for one particular rail infrastructure upgrade in southern Ontario: the Peterborough-Toronto railroad. My understanding is that the source of that funding is general revenue. There is a commitment from the government. I think it's contingent on matching funds from the province, but there is a commitment.
Nobody has suggested that somebody has to tax somebody to do it. It's part of the government's overall obligation, as the provider, in some circumstances, of public transit infrastructure, to come up with that money. There is also rail infrastructure money assigned to upgrade the service between Toronto and London, Ontario; CN has been given money by the federal government to upgrade that infrastructure. There was some concern expressed by the Ministry of Transport recently that the infrastructure money had not been spent and that CN was dragging its feet. My understanding is that they are now starting to spend the money.
It is a strange comment, I guess, that there isn't a source of revenue. There is a source of revenue: it's the general revenue of the government. Also, it's the general nature of this government to protect investments in rail infrastructure generally.
There will be, I understand, needs for other rail infrastructure improvements or maintenance, such as for the handling of wheat in western Canada. There is serious concern that some of those short lines have exactly this kind of problem. This hasn't come to the surface yet because transportation doesn't happen until later in the summer. But there is some serious concern that some of the short lines, which are community owned—they are not owned by the big rail companies—will collapse, and it will be discovered that without a Wheat Board, the transportation of wheat can't be done, because these short lines will fail.
There doesn't appear to be a government paying attention to this network of rail infrastructure in Canada, which in some cases has been inherited by local community groups. They have been trying to keep it running, to maintain it, but they don't have the deep pockets the federal government has.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we're asking the government to raise taxes somewhere or to somehow impose some kind of penalty on the communities where this occurs. What I'm suggesting is that the government look at all of its priorities as it determines how it will spend money. One of its priorities needs to be the maintenance of infrastructure in Canada.
Canada was built on rail infrastructure. Canada was built on the ability to move goods and passengers from place to place. For at least 150 years, the federal government has traditionally had a role in helping to maintain that infrastructure. If the government is now abandoning that role, then the folks in Peterborough would like to know. The folks in London would like to know. The folks in Cornwall would like to know. The folks in Kitchener would like to know.
But we're not suggesting that there be something new and different happening. It is a normal course of action on the part of the Government of Canada to help maintain critical infrastructure. If there needs to be some kind of.... We understand that there is, at least in the Victoria instance, an offer of help from the provincial government, and there is clearly an undertaking by the group in the Gaspésie to keep up this rail once it is finally put into good working order.
We're not talking about an ongoing investment over years and years. We're talking about one-time money. We think the government needs to look at all of its priorities and make determinations about whether or not infrastructure in Canada is a priority it can sign on to and, in particular, to determine that these two rail corridors be looked at in the designing of the next federal budget.