September 6, 2026
On Sunday, September 6, over 120 concerned residents gathered at the Richmond Memorial Community Centre to hear Dr. Ian Lee of Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business present his economic analysis of the proposed Alto high-speed rail project.
For Carleton, this is not an abstract infrastructure debate. It could affect farms, families, property owners and rural communities here at home, while the enormous financial consequences would extend across Ontario, Quebec and ultimately to taxpayers throughout Canada.
That is why Carleton needs to be part of this conversation now.
Dr. Lee’s assessment was direct: in his view, the numbers behind Alto do not add up.
His argument was not that high-speed rail can never work. He pointed to Japan as the strongest example of a successful system. But Japan has conditions that are fundamentally different from Canada: extraordinary population density, major urban concentrations and high-speed rail that is closely integrated with local transportation networks.
Dr. Lee questioned whether Canada has the population density, ridership and transportation patterns necessary to reproduce that success.
Alto is projecting approximately 24 million passengers annually. Dr. Lee argued that this forecast cannot be credibly reproduced when fares, demographics and Canadians’ continued reliance on automobiles are taken into account.
His conclusion was therefore much more serious than simply questioning details of the project: he believes the underlying business case is flawed from the outset.
Before taxpayers are committed to a project of this magnitude, that argument deserves serious examination.
Dr. Lee compared Canada with high-speed rail experience in Japan, China, Europe and California.
Japan is the clear success story, yet even there rail accounts for approximately 28 per cent of passenger travel according to the figures he presented.
China has built an extraordinary high-speed rail network, but Dr. Lee highlighted the enormous debt accumulated by its railway system. In Europe, despite decades of investment, automobiles continue to dominate passenger transportation.
He also pointed to California’s troubled Los Angeles–San Francisco high-speed rail project as an important comparison. That proposed corridor is shorter than Quebec City–Toronto, yet its estimated costs have escalated dramatically. Dr. Lee therefore questioned whether Canada can realistically deliver a longer system at the substantially lower costs currently being discussed.
The lesson is not that Canada should stop thinking big. It is that ambition without economic discipline can become extraordinarily expensive.
Perhaps the most important question raised during the discussion was one of opportunity cost.
If Alto ultimately requires tens, or potentially well over a hundred, billion dollars, what other priorities will Canada postpone or abandon to pay for it?
Dr. Lee specifically raised pressures on healthcare as an example. Critique of High-Speed Rail Project.docx But the principle applies much more broadly: defence, trade infrastructure, roads, ports, energy, productivity and the infrastructure needed by growing communities all compete for limited public resources.
The current government may want to undertake large, nation-building projects. Canada certainly needs ambition. But a project does not become a good investment simply because it is large.
We need to understand what Canadians receive for that investment and what opportunities we lose by putting those resources in one place.
Dr. Lee also raised a forward-looking question that deserves greater attention: what will transportation look like by the time Alto is actually operational?
Artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles and intelligent transportation systems are advancing rapidly. Dr. Lee argued that autonomous mobility could fundamentally alter how Canadians travel and questioned whether Alto sufficiently accounts for that technological change.
Rather than assuming one massive fixed rail corridor is the answer, Canada should seriously compare Alto with investments in autonomous mobility, intelligent highways, improved existing rail, regional transportation and other emerging technologies.
He also pointed to enhanced high-frequency conventional rail as a potentially less costly alternative.
We should examine those alternatives before, not after, committing taxpayers to one of the largest infrastructure investments in Canadian history.
This discussion also speaks directly to why I am seeking the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in Carleton.
I believe public policy improves when people with practical experience are prepared to examine difficult issues seriously, challenge assumptions and understand how decisions made in government ultimately affect people on the ground.
I want to bring my experience working at the provincial, federal and international levels, together with my business and public-policy experience, to questions like Alto.
But ultimately, the test should be much simpler.
Does it make sense for the farmer whose land may be affected? Does it make sense for the family already struggling with the cost of living? Does it make sense for the small business owner paying taxes and trying to grow? And does it make sense for ordinary residents of Carleton who expect government to spend their money carefully?
Those are the people I want to represent.
Being ambitious for Canada and being responsible with taxpayers’ money are not competing ideas. We should be capable of doing both.
I was encouraged to see over 120 residents spend part of their Labour Day weekend participating in this discussion. It demonstrated that people in Carleton are engaged and want serious answers about decisions that could affect their communities for generations.
I thank the Carleton Conservative Association for facilitating the event, Liz McKinnon for her leadership in organizing the community around this issue, and the volunteers who gave their time to bring everyone together.
I also thank Dr. Ian Lee for presenting a challenging, data-driven case and engaging directly with residents.
Whatever one’s position on Alto, the project should have to withstand rigorous scrutiny before Canadians are asked to pay for it.
For Carleton, this is about protecting our farms, families and communities. For Ontario and Quebec, it is about the future of a major transportation corridor. And for Canada, it is about whether we are making the right long-term investments with taxpayers’ money.
I’d make it more personal and rooted in a sense of responsibility to the community:
That is the kind of serious conversation I want Carleton to help lead. Carleton is more than a riding to me, it is my home and the community my family and I are proud to be part of.
I care deeply about the people who live here, the communities we are building, and the future we leave to our children.
That is why I am seeking the Conservative Party of Canada nomination in Carleton: to stand up for our families, farmers, small businesses and communities, and to make sure Carleton has a strong, experienced conservative voice in Parliament.