Cities and people require "mobility" (i.e. the ability to get from A to B in a convenient and affordable manner), not "rail transportation" (or any other mode of transportation).
Agreed.
The purpose of rail (and any other mode of transportation) is to provide transportation services wherever they can be provided profitably (i.e. after government involvement through regulation, taxation and subsidies).
While I understand your point, I do think its awkwardly worded. Profitable and subsidized aren't typically used to describe the same thing (though, in all truth, they often go tightly together).
But also I question whether purpose from the point of view of society goes w/the word profit. The link to profit is tied to the provider (particularly a private-sector provider).
Therefore, there is no market for rail services on routes like Toronto-North Bay/Sudbury, Sudbury-Winnipeg or Edmonton-Calgary, where passenger rail service would inevitably be less convenient (i.e. less frequent, reliable and fast) than the established modes (driving, bus and often also: the airplane)...
Well.........
There is no profitable market, based on the current subsidy and current infrastructure on offer would seem a more accurate statement.
Its entirely fair to say, that VIA cannot raises its profile or improve its financial position by running the services discussed above, in the absence of greater subsidy and infrastructure investment.
That's 100% true.
Clearly VIA would not make money running Toronto-Sudbury or North Bay - Winnipeg as things stand. Neither of those services could turn a profit currently, and even if much better and faster service were able to be achieved, its rather unlikely the services would break even.
But some of the discussed pairings, Edmonton-Calgary for sure; and Calgary-Banff could be popular, and politically advantageous to operate; particularly the latter, relative to required investment.
Edmonton-Calgary almost certainly requires a substantial investment (HSR/HFR++) to be competitive w/current trip offers, and providing that is a political choice, not one open to VIA.
****
I do think its important to make a delineation here.
There are services which don't make financial sense to operate for VIA in the current circumstances, with the current subsidy available.
But some of those services do make sense with the right investments, and there is a case to be made for those; its just that the choice to get there is made at a level above VIA staff/management.
Some people here would argue though, and I might be one, that its incumbent on VIA management to make that case proactively; and not to let its network atrophy with what might be perceived to be a certain degree of apathy.
