|
|
|
The user pay model would be ideal, if you can make it a wash for rail lines in terms of money....balance the revenue they generate by buying their corridors (current dollars), their avoided future maintenance and capital investment costs (future dollars), with payments (future dollars) and have the Canadian Infrastructure bridge the gap to make it 'bankable'.
Can you tell us what was said? I have met PP a few times but never spoke on this topic.
If I recall correctly, what PP told him was not that much different from what he says publicly: he finds the idea interesting, but needs more information to determine whether its benefits outweigh the costs to the taxpayer. Far from the ideological hostility some people here seem desperate to interpret into him on this subject…
If all federally funded infrastructure projects were held to this standard there would be no federally funded infrastructure projects.
Yea so basicallly what the committeee said. Give up dates and costs and then we will see if its worth it
Which would be a totally reasonable position when you are (soon) trusted with making spending decsisions for billions of taxpayer dollars and have probably (so far) barely more access to project/procurement informations than the overwhelming majority of us here. But anyways, this is what @roger1818 has previously told us about his encounter with PP:
Was VIA more or less woke about what? Racism? Uniforms? Food selection? I don't understanding the question.
I'm making a joke about how far the CPC's policy has fallen in the past six years. Poilievre has stated previously he will replace ""woke culture"" because he's nothing better to do than pander to American culture wars bullshit.
Conservative Party Public Policy…..see https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/23175001/990863517f7a575.pdf. This is about as close to comprehensive as it gets, with the rider, that this document is guidance only. See points 66 and 67 re rail transport.
But you don’t understand: it’s not party policy documents or newspaper articles which teach you about a party’s intentions, but some randos’ conspiracy theories on forums like this one… /s
This isn't future election policy, simply policy recommended by party members at convention. It's not binding for election policy decision-making.
This is an artful dodge. Why commit to a position when it has no upside? Remember, he has been a politician his entire adult life. When it comes time to pick between tax cuts and HSR, what do you think he's going to pick? HSR doesn't have a large contingent of supporters. The suburban 905 voters that will secure his majority won't have strong feelings on the subject. Not to say that they are necessarily hostile to it, but spending $15-20B on a HSR project wouldn't outrank other priorities.
If you narrow down the options to “true HSR or bust”, then the answer will certainly be the latter. However, I trust the Conservative party to curtail both, the geographical and technological scope, until the taxpayer price tag becomes less offensive. I wouldn’t count on HFR reaching Quebec City or any HSR segment beyond Bonarlaw-Kingston(?)-SMTF to find their way into the initial scope (maybe not even electrification), but I am still optimistic that we’ll end up with something which still is large enough to be a gamechanger, even if it looks very much like the initial scope…
