Mr. Speaker, this debate has been quite interesting. I suppose many of us come to this Chamber with somewhat different points of view.
I listened to the first speaker from the Bloc. He was talking about combating uncertainty with this project. With a wide open cheque book and having absolutely no idea how many cheques we are going to have to write, to say that this would be a project which would combat uncertainty is probably 180 degrees from the reality. I do not see this project as being a solution to combating uncertainty whatsoever.
The member spoke of it in terms of economic viability. As my colleague from North Vancouver has said, if it truly is economically viable why is private industry not stepping up to bat? Why are they not the people who are asking for the okay from the people of Canada?
In doing a little research for this I came across a presentation made in writing from the TGV Canada consortium which is led by Bombardier and GEC Alsthom. They are the people who are attempting to pull this together, at least the concept, for Canadians to buy into. It sounds absolutely terrific.
On page 17 of their report they say:
The TGV is the job creation project for the 1990s. For the construction phase alone, TGV Canada will provide a major boost to job creation in all parts of Canada.
They go on about the fact that we are going to have engineering, construction equipment, construction, cement and concrete products, metal products, steel rails, structural steel, transportation equipment, rolling stock, electrical and electronic industries, signalling and communications. It goes on and on. It just sounds wonderful.
Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to pay for all of these wonderful things in this project?
One of the other members in his speech mentioned the channel tunnel. To the best of my knowledge, according to the information I have received, the tunnel underneath the English Channel will never be paid for. It will never pay for itself because it went double its budget.
I suggest with the greatest of respect to our friends in the civil service that because there is not a profit motive involved in the kind of work they do, without that discipline that is exactly what would happen on this project.
In additional research, I took a look at what the member for Québec-Est said in Hansard on December 11, 1991, March 12, 1992, March 19, 1992, and what the member for Drummond said on March 20, 1992. It goes on and on. This project has been a favourite of people from that area and I can understand why.
If we had any experience where private enterprise had come in and done something like this on a massive scale without government support, without getting their hands in the pockets of ordinary Canadians, certainly the majority of people in this Chamber would be in favour of it.
I see a statement under Standing Order 31 on March 20, 1992 by the former member for Drummond where it states in part:
In addition to the many industrial benefits, the socioeconomic advantages, and the potential for exports, setting up a high-speed railway line could very well make Canada a centre of excellence for high-speed railway transportation.
He goes on:
Mr. Speaker, building a high-speed line at an estimated cost of $5 billion to $8 billion-
That seems to me not necessarily knowing what a million is. With a billion being a thousand of those and the spread being between $5 billion to $8 billion, well it is only taxpayers' money.
-will represent the biggest private investment this country has ever known. This genuine revolution in transportation could generate the construction of 23 corridors in North America, with economic spin-offs and investments totalling $200 billion.
That scares me a lot. It really scares me when we have people like myself, not an engineer, not a financier-I would suspect that the former member was probably like myself, not necessarily even understanding what $1 billion is-throwing out figures, saying it will cost $5 billion or it will cost $8 billion and it will spin off $200 billion. These are not crackers we are throwing out. These are billions and billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
We have so many unknowns with it as well. We have not tried a smaller high speed line as a test. We do not know it will operate in our climate, in our specific situation. I have travelled by railway in Switzerland with its concrete ties and the whole business and while I know that much of its climate is like ours, we have not done a small enough test in Canada to even know if we have the technology and the technological ability to be able to do this at this point.
With the first speaker this afternoon talking about leaving the people of Canada something, I suggest with the greatest respect that what we would be leaving them would be a sinkhole of public debt. That is what we would be leaving them with in this project. The timing is wrong.
I would further suggest, again with the greatest respect, that if we really want to combat uncertainty, we have to get down to the business of working out a united Canada. We need to get away from this business of blowing this country up and separating it and pulling it apart. If we want real certainty in Canada, we have to focus on solving problems together. That is what is going to make Canada great, not some mythical fantasy land high speed rail line between Windsor and Quebec.