Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I'm really trying to make this work because I agree with it, quite frankly. As I said to Mr. Barsalou-Duval earlier, this has to happen anyway. This is the job of the committee as this project is going to unfold. I agree with what Mr. Strahl just said. I don't agree with Mr. Muys, but that's another story altogether, which we'll discuss in the future.
I'll say this. There's no question that Via Rail wants to be open and transparent, but the law is the law when it comes to proprietary information.
The second part of it is that, as we look forward to the cost estimates, as I mentioned earlier, my interest is not only in this project but also in the implications the costs are going to have on other projects that are going to support this project. We all recognize the fact—we had this discussion with the members of the team before the meeting started—that when we put high-speed and/or high-frequency rail in place, we're going to see a lot of other cost implications with other methods of transportation that will complement this project. We're going to see more costs, for example, with municipal transit. Look at the Province of Ontario with Metrolinx. There are services, locally and regionally, that are going to complement this project. Therefore, they should have costs attributed to them. It's not just the federal government. It's going to be attached to local, municipal, regional, provincial and, in some jurisdictions throughout the country, even private.
I appreciate where Mr. Barsalou-Duval is going because, at the end of the day, we do want to put in place an overall umbrella transportation and logistics strategy, which this is going to be a part of. As well, with that strategy, there is going to be a cost, which this is going to be a part of, so I get it.
From the business side, let's put aside the politics, put aside the partisanship, and let's just deal with the business of government. That's what this is about, and I support that. It's just a matter of showing respect to our partners vis-à-vis proprietary. Just to get a bit granular on that, we do have to take into consideration what's actually in the contracts that are going out to the folks who are going to be part of this project and what can be released publicly. That's business.
At the end of the day, we have to show that respect, with respect to the contracts that are going out. The second layer is with the proprietary considerations based on who gets those contracts. The third layer is our due diligence, our fiduciary responsibility, as the project proceeds, with respect to the costs attached to it. That is business.
Once again, let's put the politics and the partisanship aside and deal with the business.
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, I thank you for that.
Having said that, on the next part, which goes to the amendment that Mr. Bachrach has attached to this motion, I think that's a great idea. I'll take it a step further. Instead of doing it after the fact, we should possibly consider doing it before the fact.
Why don't we ask for that in camera meeting at our next meeting? We could ask those very questions in terms of what can be considered proprietary versus assuming that, as Mr. Strahl said, we can actually ask for this information and get it—which I don't agree with, by the way. Some of those companies, whether we subpoena them or not, legally don't have to give out proprietary information. I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but I think we should at least validate that at our next meeting and ask some of those questions—unless, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to ask these questions of the witnesses right now, which in fact we could have done half an hour ago. We probably could have received a lot of the information contained within this motion based on the witnesses, the folks who are doing the project, who are here tonight.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm going to ask for your guidance. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the witnesses the question with respect to the proprietary commercial aspects of it, as well as what may be in the contracts that they can divulge that may prevent us from getting some of this information and therefore it would have to be redacted?