Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 112 asks the federal government to authorize the construction of a high speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City. The Bloc motion actually reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the required measures to authorize the construction of a high speed train linking the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary infrastructure.
The motion could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. If the motion is asking only for authorization to proceed using 100 per cent private funding then there would be no real reason for us to stand in the way of construction of such a project.
Alarm bells are ringing for me and I have a reputation to defend. I managed to get to third place on the list of scrooges on Parliament Hill, proof that I am exceptionally careful with taxpayers' dollars. I will have to apologize to my constituents for not making it to number one position, but I will try to do better next year.
I have a reputation to defend, as I said, and alarm bells are going off all over the place in connection with the motion. I see a sink hole, a black hole for taxpayers' dollars into which we could throw billions of dollars without ever creating a self-sustaining transportation system between Windsor and Quebec City.
If the second interpretation of the motion is that we are being asked to authorize taxpayers' money to be spent on this project then I say absolutely not. I quote from a colleague who has
earlier spoken to the motion: "Considering that the political elites of Ottawa have not had the competence to turn an annual budgetary surplus since the early 1970s, I would certainly be surprised if any viable industry would want to enter into a working partnership with the federal government".
What then could possibly be the justification for government participation in a high speed rail proposal? In short the crux of the issue is very simple: if the rail line is a financially viable project then the federal government should give its full legislative backing to such a plan, providing there is no fiscal component involved. If it is not proven to be fiscally viable then why would the government sink any of its non-existent money into such a plan anyway? It certainly would be nice for us to be the North American pioneers of high speed rail transportation but if the logic is not there then neither should the taxpayers' money be there.
The possibility of the public and private sector splitting the cost on this project has been discussed. This means the government would still be asked to pay nearly $3 billion toward something that sounds great but may not work.
Where is the government going to get such a large amount of money? Not only is the availability of $3 billion in question but also I wonder if that amount will rise as more costs are discovered, either costs that were not figured into the original project or costs that were underestimated, as is often the case with government projects. While costs may rise astronomically there is no guarantee a profit would be made at the end of the project anyway.
There is also the question of whether private industry would indeed want to enter a partnership with the federal government as I mentioned earlier. If there are huge profits to be earned then the private sector should tackle this project on its own.
I am not condemning or encouraging the idea of a high speed rail link per se. Rather I am saying the government should not be involved in any way other than legislating to make the project possible, if legislation is indeed needed.
I cannot justify putting $3 billion worth of taxpayers' money into such an uncertain project. I believe the building of such a railway should be left up to the private sector to finance if it feels the need for it.
If there is no interest in this project from private industry then it must feel there is not enough financial stability in the investment to undertake it. If it feels the risk is too great for itself, it is not the place of the government to override the people's decision and spend their money on a project they would not support themselves.
I know this is a revolutionary thought for many members on the government side, the thought that they would not do something that the people wanted them to do.
In my riding of North Vancouver there is a private company which runs tourist rail traffic through the Rocky Mountains. This company, Rocky Mountain Rail Tours, is in its fifth season and receives absolutely no taxpayer subsidies. It creates a significant number of private sector jobs and has generated more than $5 million in taxes for all levels of government. While there were losses for the first five years of operation the company stuck it out and made a six-figure profit in 1993.
That is evidence that such a system can be built and run without government interference. The only threat to this company at present is the possibility of a government run railway receiving extraordinary amounts in subsidies as its competition.
Though it took a few years to get off the ground, Rocky Mountain Rail Tours is now doing very well and the company is forecasting more and more passenger traffic all the time. As I mentioned, the only threat that exists right now is the possibility that cabinet may authorize VIA Rail to begin running again on those same tracks.
Even if the government had wads of money spilling out of its treasury, which it certainly does not, there would be no logical sense in undertaking a high speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City at this time. That is because one-third of the track would be located in Quebec and as long as the separatist threat continues to loom over the economic and political well-being of the country there is no point in proceeding with such a project.
I want to retain at least number three position on the Hill Times list of Scrooges on Parliament Hill, so I cannot risk supporting this motion that is on the table from the Bloc.