‘They just want a blank cheque’: opposition MPs, farmers call on feds to scrap $90-billion high-speed rail project, say feds are secretive about details
The federal government’s “nation-building” high-speed rail project is under scrutiny with pressure growing from opposition MPs, some Senators, and farmers who are accusing the Liberals of “secrecy” about the $90-billion project details, and potential impacts on the environment and agriculture.
The project's estimated cost is slated between $60-billion and $90-billion. If the project goes ahead, the line will be Canada’s first high-speed rail network, running approximately 1,000 kilometres from Toronto to Quebec City, and reaching speeds of up to 300 kilometres per hour, cutting travel times in half. Alto, the Crown corporation owned by VIA Rail and the public partner that will run the project, says it will create more than 50,000 jobs over 10 years, and will serve 43 million passengers annually. It will also contribute $24.4-billion to Canada’s GDP.
On June 10, a group of farmers and land owners—many from areas where the rail line is roughly expected to pass—protested the Alto project on Parliament Hill. Critics called on the federal government to scrap the project, arguing that it is asking the taxpayers to support a $90-billion project without offering any core details about it such as the final route, potential cost overruns, or long-term economic benefit to the public.
Conservative MP Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac, Ont.) argued that the government has made all the project details confidential since Alto was selected as the public partner in February 2025.
“They've made all of the information confidential. They won't release the contracts, the projections, it's all kept secret. … They would have shown us the path towards profitability that is being claimed by the winning consortium,” he said.
"We are deliberately being kept in the dark.”
Reid said he supported a petition that received 17,531 signatures, presented to the House of Commons on June 5, asking the House to cease further advancement of the project, and redirect federal investment toward improving higher-frequency passenger rail service within existing corridors. It also called on the House to decline the provisions in Bill C-15 that grant extraordinary powers to expedite rail corridor approvals.
Speaking to reporters after the June 10 protest, federal Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Que.) told reporters that the government would proceed with "great sensitivity and respect" for farmers, and would consult with communities until a precise route is chosen for the "nation-building project."
When asked directly if he could guarantee the project would not run over the $90-billion estimated cost, MacKinnon said there are still "unknowns" and unforeseen events associated with a project that still does not have a final route.
"We have acted, and that we will continue to act with great sensitivity and respect for the agricultural community, which we will continue to consult until we are able to announce the precise route. We will listen to all sectors, including the agricultural community," MacKinnon said.
Speaking to reporters in April, Prime Minister Mark Carney (Nepean, Ont.) said the government would make sure that the project moves forward effectively.
“When you look at the overall, what the high-speed rail does is it's more cost-effective, it's more sustainable, it's connecting our communities, so it's going to be faster, and I gave the figures, I mean, it's going to create a huge number of jobs directly,” he said.
Conservative MP Michael Barrett, whose riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ont., is on the suggested rail corridor, told The Hill Times that he has met with Alto and asked for project details, but that the corporation “offered no answers beyond what they've publicly made available.”
"It is a very ambitious federal project that we will continue pursuing on the accelerated timeline," Barrett said.
“This project cuts through the heart of my community. It will divide communities, it will see the for sale expropriation of private property, of farms of generational family properties, homes of small businesses,” he said.
Barrett said if the project goes ahead, “it will irreversibly damage” a very ecologically sensitive part of Canada which includes the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, a 2,700-square-kilometre ecological corridor in Eastern Ontario stretching from Kingston to Brockville.
Barrett added that he is not looking for the route to be displaced or pushed north into another community.
“This train offers no benefit to the people who live in the community that it will most affect, and that's a story that's very similar all along the route,” he said. “I don't think that the project is one that has been born out of sufficient consultation that supports the kind of destruction and devastation that it's going to see.”
Lack of transparency tops list of opposition's criticism
A June 12 poll by Pallas Data which derived answers from 1,099 Québécois, found that 42 per cent of Canadians are in favour of the project while another 23 per cent were somewhat favourable, bringing the overall support for the project up to 65 per cent. Meanwhile, 24 per cent of the Canadians participated in the poll including the 14 per cent who are against it and 10 per cent who say it is "somewhat unfavourable" to pursue the project.
Bloc Québécois MP Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi–Témiscamingue, Que.), vice-chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, told The Hill Times that he sees “many, many red flags” in the way Ottawa is going about the high-speed rail project, and argued that there is a “huge problem of social acceptability.”
“The conditions created by Bill C-15 are not a winning context for social acceptability. We don't have any guarantee for the rentability of the investment,” he explained. “So it's not against the principle of the train, it's about how it's made, the [lack of] consultation with the community and feasibility of the project.”
Lemire said he is “very concerned” about the project's impact for farmers who are dealing with the risk of having to possibly close down their farms, and could see their lands cut in half, affecting their mental health as well as their livelihood.
"It's a catastrophe,” said the MP.
Bill C-15, also known as the Budget Implementation Act, which passed in March included changes to the High-Speed Rail Network Act to fast-track the high-speed rail project to expedite federal land acquisition, and to remove some of the procedural rights available to landowners.
The most controversial of these changes is the removal of the requirement to attempt a purchase, which means if the related minister decides a parcel of land is needed for public work, the Crown corporation—in this case VIA Rail—can directly acquire the land without having to negotiate a purchase with the landowners.
Other changes include streamlining the notices of intention sent to landowners which essentially means providing less information, removing the requirement of a public hearing if there is an objection by a landowner, and not taking into account any increase in value of the land when determining market value and compensation.
Lemire is also a member of the House Public Accounts Committee which previously studied issues in federal procurement including costly delays and mushrooming price tags of major projects.
He argued that the government has not been transparent with its plans for spending and otherwise, and has an obligation to do its homework and create a balanced plan moving forward, factoring in the criticism raised by citizens.
“We have to know, we have to reduce [spending]. ... We don't see the numbers, we don't see the study from the government side or from Alto,” he said. “They want a blank cheque.”
Conservative MP John Barlow (Foothills, Alta.), who is his party’s critic for agriculture and agri-food, told The Hill Times that acquisition of lands risks impacting Canada’s food sovereignty, causing the loss of thousands of farms and critical agricultural land.
“Farm land and good agricultural land is finite, and to lose that for a project that will benefit very few people just doesn't make sense,” he said. “We just can't lose [those lands]. It is irreplaceable.”
“You can't move machinery, livestock across a high-speed rail line. Are they going to build hundreds of underpasses or overpasses for farmers to access both sides of their property? It's not realistic,” he added.
Barlow said he also took issue with the estimated price tag of the project, saying the funds could “make incredible difference” in improving other infrastructure that would benefit a wider range of Canadians.
“This should not be a priority with all the other issues that we are facing and limited finances … to build a project that no one is clamoring for the government to do. You have to measure the pros and cons, they clearly haven't done their due diligence,” he said.
“Let's be realistic: we're probably looking at double that [$90-billion estimation]. Those dollars could be much better spent improving infrastructure that already exists,” Barlow said, pointing at the Ports of Vancouver and Montreal, and existing rail lines.
“I think the only people who are going to benefit from this are liberal insiders, consultants. They've already spent millions of dollars on the vice presidents and the executives on bonuses, and not a single shovel in the ground,” he said.
Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Que.) testified at the House Committee on Ethics on June 11, having been summoned to answer MPs' questions about his proximity to the Alto project, and whether he breached ethics rules, given his life partner has been working as a vice president for the corporation since last July.
Champagne told MPs that he “followed all the rules” to prevent any ethical breaches, and that he confirmed with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that he was under “no risk of a conflict of interest arising from the circumstances in question,” and that no official screen was required. Champagne added that he still recused himself from meetings concerning this project “out of an abundance of caution”.
After his committee appearance, Champagne declined to answer The Hill Times’ questions about the opposition’s criticism that the Alto project should not be a priority for the government.
“I’ve answered all the questions at committee,” he said.
Liberal MP Giovanna Mingarelli, whose riding of Prescott-Russell-Cumberland, Ont., is likely to be part of the suggested corridor, did not respond to The Hill Times' request for comment, but pointed at a previous press release in which she has publicly opposed potential expropriation of lands in her riding for the HSR.
“I wish to be clear that I do not support widespread expropriation in Prescott-Russell-Cumberland. It is my expectation that Alto will undertake the necessary due diligence and engage in careful conversations with landowners in order to secure the support of the majority of our community as the Alto high-speed rail project continues,” she said in an April 24 news release.
The Liberal MP said her community is open to alternative solutions for the train's path, and said she is in close contact with Alto and MacKinnon, “both of whom are aware of the concerns being raised.”
“Wherever there are opportunities to avoid the most serious consequences for property owners and families, those options should be fully explored,” she said.
NDP Leader Avi Lewis told The Hill Times that while his party supports the expansion of HSR and improving Canada's national rail system, major infrastructure projects should be carried out under public ownership.
"The real problem with the Alto project lies in its model. We know that public-private partnerships often cost more, deliver fewer results, and are shrouded in secrecy. If the public is going to be on the hook for the costs of this project anyway, we should at least own it," Lewis said.
"We should have a say in its development. This including consulting—and, if necessary, compensating—the communities along the route where the rail project is being built. There are a lot of communities along the proposed route who will be affected, and they must absolutely be part of the discussion."
What do the farmers want?
The farmers are not opposed to the idea of high-speed rail, but are opposed to this specific project the government is planning on going ahead with, according to Jennifer Pfenning, president of the National Farmers Union.
“We're opposed to this project because it doesn't actually give us what we need. What we need is investment in infrastructure across the country, in a rail system that actually allows us to travel and ship goods across the country in a timely fashion,” she told The Hill Times.
Pfenning argued that there has been “no transparency” around what Alto and the government is planning to do, nor a strong business case with a reliable price tag and measurable objectives.
“They are not sharing whatever data they may have. What they have said leads us to believe that they really don't know what it's going to cost, and we haven't seen a good case for the project,” she said.
Alto ran a three-month public consultation process which closed on April 24, engaging stakeholders, Indigenous communities, and municipalities on details concerning the proposed rail route, potential stations, entry points to major cities, and land acquisitions. The corporation says it has been collaborating with cities, stakeholders, and organizations and that it has held more than 30 roundtables, 26 open houses, and 10 virtual sessions.
According to Pfenning, some farmers whose lands are located in the vaguely-defined corridor have received letters from Alto saying they are looking to engage with the owners. That was the extent of any clear communication, she argued, adding that Alto and the government are “not responding with real data, with real dialog, they're pushing it through as a fait accompli that we simply will have to accept.”
“That's not the right way to go about it… We don't know where exactly the route itself is going to be,” she said.
While the precise route and stops have yet to be publicly declared, the first HSR section will run between Ottawa and Montreal, with construction expected to begin in 2029. The network will have a stop in Laval, Que. Further phases of the project will likely include stops in Toronto and Peterborough, Ont.; as well as Trois-Rivières and Quebec City, Que.
Alto did not respond to The Hill Times’ questions but has said “the final alignment has yet to be determined” for them to reveal the corridor. Alto said a second round of consultations will be launched in the fall for the Montreal-Ottawa line, which will inform the final alignment, while the corridor for the east and west segments will be determined at a later date, according to the corporation.
Pfenning said farmers are worried that if the project moves ahead without transparency, further consultation with stakeholders and dialogue, it has the potential to divide communities, to split farmlands, and to destroy sensitive wetlands and other ecological spaces that are vital for the environment.
The Hill Times