→ Government Documents
Community map (not the ALTO map): highspeedrailmap.ca ↗
In the News — Post-Consultation
Elliot Ferguson reports on a research paper from Go Alto, a group advocating for the project, arguing that corridor demand already exists rather than needing to be created. The paper puts intercity driving at roughly 35.5 million motor-vehicle trips a year and counts about 228 flights between cities with proposed stations, arguing both markets carry time and cost penalties a train would remove. It cites VIA Rail carrying 3.34 million passengers between Toronto and Québec City in 2025 on infrastructure shared with freight, and Alto’s own estimates of current rail mode share at approximately six per cent of Ottawa–Montréal travel, nine per cent Toronto–Ottawa and six per cent Montréal–Québec City. Go Alto’s David Bellerive frames the remaining debate as one about how to build the network well — routing, station connections to local transit, integration with VIA. The counter-view comes from Elizabethtown-Kitley Coun. Eleanor Renaud, who questions how the public is asked to back a project with no published business plan and argues fares would be prohibitive for families, noting existing train travel to Toronto already runs over $100 per person.
A joint letter signed by Maria Luisa Dominguez, Chief Project Management Officer at Alto, and Loïc Dorbec, Project Director at Cadence — a direct proponent response to severance and barrier concerns. Both cite their roles on high-speed projects in Spain and France. The letter states that Alto will not create a wall between communities or a barrier to wildlife and natural water flows, promising crossings and infrastructure to maintain local road access, agricultural operations, wildlife movement, water flows and emergency response routes. The supporting figures are European: France’s roughly 2,700 km high-speed network includes more than 4,000 engineering structures maintaining road and agricultural access, and Spain’s Madrid–Barcelona–French border line built more than 900 overpasses, underpasses and viaducts across approximately 750 km. The letter offers no Canadian crossing counts, costs or design commitments, and no comparison between the cited European alignments and the greenfield rural corridor proposed here.
Trade-press coverage that carefully separates what has been decided from what has not. The Rideau Lakes Against Alto HSR Group has broadened its position from opposing the southern corridor to opposing high-speed rail on any corridor; the Township published the statement on August 10, although the release itself is dated June 30. On the route: MacKinnon’s June 22 announcement directed Alto to develop a plan to assess a southern Peterborough–Ottawa option including a potential Kingston stop connecting with VIA Rail, subject to technical feasibility — a study instruction, not a route selection. Alto’s FAQ confirms no alignment has been selected between Peterborough and Ottawa, with a study corridor roughly 10 km wide to be narrowed to a right-of-way of about 60 metres. Transport Canada lists seven mandatory station cities — Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montréal, Laval, Trois-Rivières, Québec City — with Kingston assessed only as a potential additional stop. The piece also distinguishes the citizens’ group position from the formal municipal one: Rideau Lakes council voted unanimously in February against the southern corridor and 12 mayors and reeves signed a joint letter on April 30, but Mayor Arie Hoogenboom has said those leaders are not opposed to high-speed rail in principle.
Reporting on a Blacklock’s Reporter story built from an Access to Information release: a censored 15-page Parks Canada memo states the agency is implicated in the project because of possible impacts to Parks Canada-administered places depending on the route selected, and that there is currently insufficient information to determine how its lands or resources may be affected. A July 8 briefing note to the Interim President and CEO records that the agency has already flagged potential risks to Transport Canada, and that the impact assessment for the Ottawa–Montréal segment is expected to begin officially in January 2027, led by the Impact Assessment Agency. Federally administered places within or near the preliminary 10-kilometre-wide planning corridor include Rouge National Urban Park, the Lachine Canal, the Rideau Canal, the Trent-Severn Waterway and national historic sites in Quebec. On the Rideau Canal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2007, the memo says it is too early to say how the project may interact with it. The article situates this alongside Alto’s June 22 What We Heard Report and Privy Council Office focus-group research finding participants who questioned whether the corridor is an urgent federal priority.
John Lawless reports that the Rideau Lakes Against Alto HSR Group, responding to the June 22 announcement of a potential Kingston stop, is holding to a position of opposing high-speed rail along any proposed corridor in Ontario, Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. The group argues a Kingston-oriented corridor could still cut directly through Rideau Lakes and surrounding communities, that farmland, nature and communities are affected even where a route follows Highway 401, and sums its position up as “No Alto, anywhere.” Its stated remedy is high-frequency rail, transparency from Alto or any successor proponent, and answers to questions raised by councils, business owners and community groups before corridor planning proceeds. The group also objects to a 1,000-kilometre fenced corridor with no level road crossings dead-ending rural roads. The article draws the distinction visible across the region: Mayor Arie Hoogenboom and other Leeds Grenville mayors oppose the southern corridor and favour a Highway 401 alignment rather than opposing high-speed rail outright. It closes on MacKinnon’s June 16 letter to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, stating Alto will submit a refined corridor and station locations plan for approval in 2026, with final alignment planning proceeding through three stages before a final investment decision expected in 2029.
Trade-press coverage that engages directly with the Initiative’s published demand work and corrects the record on which numbers belong to whom. Alto’s ridership FAQ describes up to 24 million annual passengers by 2055 as a preliminary estimate to be refined, produced with internationally recognized models and dependent on alignment, station locations, frequency and capacity — enough to name the categories of assumption, but not enough to reproduce the calculation independently. Against that, Kingston Daily attributed a figure of 6–7 million trips per year to Dr. Andrew Hyett of the Coalition for Better Rail, based on comparisons with car-dependent regions. The article notes this is an attributed interview estimate, not the published central case: the July corridor-demand technical brief on the Citizen Research site puts its central estimate at about 8–9 million annual trips around 2055, rising toward 10 million at maturity, with a reference-class method producing a 4–5 million risk-adjusted floor from corridors scored on car dependence, density, trip length and endpoint transit. The brief’s market build-up is set out as roughly 2.8–3.5 million diverted from cars, 1.7–2.0 million from air and about 3.3 million retained VIA passengers, re-based on Statistics Canada’s January 2026 projection. The conclusion: the dispute is about how demand is counted, not a contest between two headline numbers.
A Hill Times editorial arguing the government owes the public more transparency on the project. It takes as its starting point Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon’s recent claim that the $90-billion project will redefine travel among and between Canada’s largest cities, and observes that the minister and his government are facing strong headwinds on this nation-building file. Notable less for new facts than for the venue: a Parliament Hill publication making the transparency argument in its own editorial voice.
May require a Hill Times subscription: hilltimes.com
Elliot Ferguson reports on the Coalition for Better Rail research report, to be released in 10 chapters over five weeks as a follow-up to and expansion of the alternative proposal put forward by Dr. Andrew Hyett earlier this year. The report examines methodology, cost-to-build, environmental impact, ridership, economics, and construction and delivery. Against Alto’s stated budget of $60–90 billion and forecast of 24 million passengers by 2055, the research puts likely cost at close to $143 billion and as high as $200 billion, with ridership of about 9 million by 2055. Hyett’s framing is that the pattern across megaprojects, not any single number, is the finding, and that a process which keeps approving the boldest version of a project is rewarding optimism over accuracy. The report also sets Alto against the Coalition’s high-performance rail alternative, first advanced in April and described by Hyett as a starting point: dedicated passenger lines along the existing CN corridor at about 200 km/h, cheaper trains and track, more stations serving more communities, and less disruption along the route.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com. Also published Aug 13 in The Intelligencer (Belleville).
Elliot Ferguson reports on survey results released by Common Ground Research, a newly founded independent, non-partisan research organization, from an online survey of 1,080 respondents conducted June 25 to July 18. The headline finding is support for high-speed rail but not for Alto as proposed: 82 per cent strongly opposed the current proposal, while 63 per cent strongly supported further study of a Highway 401 corridor route. Adding a Kingston station does little to shift that — 57 per cent strongly opposed a Kingston station against eight per cent strongly supporting it, with 10 per cent somewhat supportive, six per cent somewhat opposed and 18 per cent neutral. The report reads the sizeable neutral group as still open to influence, but concludes that simply adding a stop will not resolve wider route concerns without a clearer case for who it benefits and why Kingston is the right location in the network. The political finding is sharper: three quarters of respondents said the project would play a major role in their federal voting intentions, with strong opposition at 84 per cent among Conservative voters, 51 per cent among Liberal voters, 46 per cent among Green voters and about one-third among New Democrats. The Whig’s accompanying reader poll ran 72 per cent against a Kingston stop, 20 per cent in favour, eight per cent undecided.
Also published Aug 8 in the Recorder & Times (Brockville) via PressReader.
Jack Mintz asks why high-speed rail succeeded in China, Japan and Europe and failed on this continent, and assembles the comparative cost record. Building European or Asian-standard high-speed rail in the United States runs US$56–150 million per kilometre, against US$17–21 million in China and US$25–39 million in Europe — and even China’s low capital costs rest on heavy subsidy, with China Rail losing US$14 billion in 2022 against total debt of US$890 billion, about five per cent of GDP. The American record: the fastest US service reaches 250 km/h only briefly and averages 72 km/h including stops, while Washington–Boston averages 108 km/h; Brightline East is restructuring US$6 billion in debt after forecasting eight million passengers by 2026 and achieving under half; California’s project, authorized in 2008 at US$13.8 billion for phase one, now faces full funding estimated as high as US$128 billion. Applied to Alto: $60–90 billion for 1,000 kilometres would, at the top end, cost twice per kilometre what Europe’s lines do, against an international record of rail projects overshooting projected costs by 45 per cent on average. Mintz closes on the accountability gap — the politicians deciding now will not be in office in 30 years to answer for the result.
Phillip Blancher reports on a joint statement issued on behalf of 11 Progressive Conservative MPPs saying too many questions about the project remain unanswered and too many voices have been ignored, and calling for local feedback to be reflected in planning, route selection and delivery. The signatories: Nolan Quinn, Steve Clark, John Jordan, Tyler Allsopp, George Darouze, Billy Denault, David Piccini, Laurie Scott, Stephane Sarrazin, Ric Bresee and Dave Smith. The article notes this is the first time in nearly a year and a half, since the February 2025 announcement, that area provincial members have voiced concerns — and that the statement came less than a week after the federal government blocked Ontario’s $5 billion Billy Bishop expansion, where Transport Canada reported nearly 87 per cent of 87,000 consultation respondents opposed. It also records that SDG Counties has barred Alto officials from SDG-owned forests and lands on the Ottawa–Montréal route, with South Dundas Mayor Jason Broad citing unfulfilled St. Lawrence Seaway promises from the 1950s. Of direct relevance to the transparency file: The Leader asked Quinn’s office whether the province has entered into any non-disclosure agreements with Alto covering surveying and planning on provincially-owned land along the Ontario routes, noting the criticism of Ottawa city council for signing an NDA before route details could be discussed. Quinn’s office did not respond by deadline.
Sarah McGoldrick covers the same joint statement from 11 Ontario PC MPPs, framed around farmland and expropriation risk, with the statement arguing public confidence in major infrastructure depends on meaningful consultation and that the federal government must ensure any future rail project minimizes farmland impacts and is supported by the people affected. Approached for comment, Laurie Scott’s office said the statement stands as the caucus comment; Piccini’s office did not respond. The substance of the piece is the reaction from Kathleen O’Connell Renaud of St-Eugène, a founding member of Alto-No: encouraged by the statement, but concerned it may be a political move rather than recognition that the project needs scrutiny, and wanting real action rather than words — including a supporting statement from the premier, which has not followed. Alto-No is planning a protest on September 19 in Quebec at the home of a farmer potentially affected by the project, with farm organizations, municipal governments and community members from Ontario and Quebec expected to attend, and the signatory MPPs invited.
Salma Ibrahim and Kate McKenna report that Ontario Transport Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria accused the federal government of conceding to “fringe groups” by rejecting the province’s plan to allow jets at Billy Bishop airport — and that, according to a source, Ontario is now rethinking its support for Alto in response. Two sources described months of talks centred on reciprocal support for Alto and the Billy Bishop expansion; the federal rejection, made public Friday after a survey found 87 per cent of respondents opposed, “blindsided” Queen’s Park. A senior Liberal source tied the timing to the Aug. 31 Beaches–East York byelection. A PMO spokesperson defended the rail plan as a “generational investment” carrying “approximately 24 million riders annually by 2055 and up to 43 million by 2085.” Ford told Carney he was “disappointed” and the province is “re-evaluating its approach to Alto.”
Premier Doug Ford told PM Carney how “disappointed” he was that Ottawa abandoned the Billy Bishop jet expansion — a decision made within hours of survey results showing 87 per cent of 87,000 respondents opposed. Sources describe an informal “Billy Bishop for Alto” understanding, sealed by a handshake at Ford’s Etobicoke home; the 300 km/h train slashing through farmland in Tory-held rural ridings “has always been hard to sell to Ford’s caucus.” Multiple sources tied the timing to the Aug. 31 Beaches–East York byelection and to NDP plans to campaign on the airport. One Liberal MP called the province’s effort “ham-fisted… without a business case that was hard to justify”; another said “even business Liberals were skittish.”
Alto, working with Cadence, is flying drones in Ottawa’s east end — south of Mer Bleue Bog near Russell Road, Ramsayville Road and Highway 417, and over Eastway Gardens — to collect data on terrain, drainage, watercourses, erosion and wildlife habitat for its environmental assessment. Orléans South-Navan Coun. Catherine Kitts relayed Alto’s assurances that imagery would be blurred “where necessary to protect privacy” and stored with restricted access. Alto has said it will run drone surveys across eastern Ontario and western Quebec through year-end, including in North Glengarry and East Hawkesbury, and will ask property owners for permission to enter. The article notes the United Counties of Prescott-Russell refused Alto access and declined to sign an NDA, while the City of Ottawa signed one in December.
The June 22 direction by Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon asked Alto to assess a southern Peterborough–Ottawa route that could include Kingston and interconnect with VIA Rail, subject to feasibility — expanding the route study without approving a station. Federal estimates put a Kingston–Toronto trip at about 90 minutes, and a Kingston stop within a 25-minute drive of up to 80 per cent of residents between Peterborough and Ottawa. Transport Action Canada supports a Kingston stop but warns the southern alignment could place a station 25–30 minutes north of downtown Kingston, urging co-location with VIA, downtown terminals, day-one Montréal–Trudeau airport access, and public release of Alto’s business case. A more precise alignment is due in the fall; the Ottawa–Montréal section is first to be built.
Alto CEO Martin Imbleau told CBC Radio’s Ottawa Morning that Kingston will probably get a stop “because the public is asking for it” — “the ridership is very strong because it’s a large community.” Most Alto trains would pass through Kingston, Laval and Trois-Rivières without stopping to preserve express service. MacKinnon has called Kingston the fourth-busiest VIA station in the country. Imbleau said the specific Montréal–Ottawa route will be released for feedback this fall, with possible changes near Mirabel after farmer feedback, and that Alto “cannot stop in all the communities.” Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson reiterated the city would only support the project with a Kingston stop. The article notes Poilievre’s call to cancel the project and the Parti Québécois leader’s pledge to pull Quebec out of Alto if elected.
The national public-transportation advocacy group published its letter to Minister MacKinnon backing a Kingston stop while warning it must be co-located with existing VIA Rail services. A station on Alto’s proposed southern alignment — roughly 25–30 minutes by road from downtown Kingston — would “negate the travel-time savings of HSR” and divert passengers from VIA, raising VIA’s subsidy needs: “a lose-lose scenario for both services.” The group lists as essential: downtown stations in Montréal, Toronto and Québec City; day-one access to Montréal–Trudeau airport and a commitment to Toronto Pearson; close integration with GO Transit, EXO and VIA; and a shoulder station in the eastern GTA. It also renews the call to release Alto’s business case, including its assessment of existing-corridor alternatives.
Havelock resident Richard Kent has published an alternative — the “Canconnect Integrated Rail System” — a fully electric network along the existing CN route between Toronto and Québec City, costed at $55–75 billion, with stations at communities all along the corridor. Kent’s design promises Toronto–Montréal in about three and a half hours (30 minutes slower than Alto) and Kingston about 90 minutes from Toronto, and — unlike Alto — publishes indicative fares: $50–80 Toronto–Kingston, $100–130 Toronto–Montréal. It joins other alternatives, such as the Coalition for Better Rail’s proposal, in trading top speed for lower land and material costs and broader community benefit.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Clean Transportation Program Manager Sam Hersh argues high-speed rail “cannot succeed as a standalone megaproject surrounded by a fragmented and underfunded transportation network.” The piece acknowledges legitimate concerns — a build cost upwards of $90 billion and a route crossing “farmland, forests and wetlands” where rural communities “deserve meaningful consultation and strong environmental protections” — but reframes the debate away from an either/or on HSR toward whether Canada will fund the local transit, regional rail and rural bus networks HSR needs to work. It cites Japan and France as systems where HSR succeeds because it feeds an integrated network, and warns that if tickets cost as much as flying, riders will be priced out.
A profile of Félix Turgeon, Alto’s chief legal and real property assets officer, on the legal machinery behind the project. Turgeon confirms Alto needs a right-of-way roughly 60 metres wide over 1,000 km, affecting thousands of properties across Quebec and Ontario, with a comprehensive acquisition campaign to launch in about a year. The strategy prioritizes willing-buyer/willing-seller deals at fair market value plus costs, with expropriation under the federal Expropriation Act as a last resort. He confirms the High-Speed Rail Network Act (March 2026) lets Alto trigger expropriation before the impact assessment is complete and register rights of first refusal and prohibitions on work. External counsel: DLA Piper (deal structure with Cadence), Torys (impact assessment and Indigenous matters), Dentons (procurement). His background runs through Gaz Métro / Énergir and SNC-Lavalin (now AtkinsRéalis).
An op-ed by Pierre-Yves Boivin, Alto’s Chief Communications and Engagement Officer, defends the corporation’s approach: starting from a broad study corridor and consulting “early” rather than presenting a final alignment, and weighing environmental, engineering, agricultural, Indigenous, infrastructure and safety factors before choosing a route. Boivin writes that property “will only be required to support the construction, operation or maintenance of the network,” that Alto’s objective is negotiated agreements and fair compensation with a “personalized approach for each impacted landowner,” and that if expropriation is required it “would be carried out by the appropriate authorities.” He cites the potential Kingston station as a regional mobility hub.
A late-June House of Commons Agriculture Committee hearing on food security turned into a Q&A with Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald over Alto. John Barlow (CPC): “we now know Alto will impact about 500 farms between Montreal and Ottawa — do you know how many for the entire project?” MacDonald repeatedly answered that “the route has not even been chosen yet,” citing “a lack of communication from Alto” and “misinformation.” Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire said Bill C-15 introduced “disproportionate measures allowing Alto to negotiate with producers, impose conditions on them or crush them.” Jacques Gourde (CPC) pressed on Alto’s $3.9 billion in government funding and on who would sign expropriation letters; Dave Epp (CPC) noted UPA, OFA, NFU, CFFO and UCFO have jointly asked for a pause.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Alto has published an economic study by Québec consultancy Aviseo Conseil, using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model drawing on more than 100 international HSR studies. The report estimates the completed network could contribute a permanent 1.1 per cent increase in Canada’s GDP through productivity, labour-mobility and tourism effects, with wider gains in disposable incomes, business revenues and tax receipts. Alto frames the findings as reinforcing HSR’s long-term economic role; the project “remains in the planning and pre-construction phase.”
A letter to the editor responding to Alto’s July 16 op-ed argues that Kingston’s newly signed non-disclosure agreement with Alto — concluded “not in open council, but by city lawyers under a delegated-authority bylaw, without public debate” — further shuts out the residents most exposed to it. Because a Kingston alignment was not part of Alto’s formal consultation (the city began lobbying only after the January study corridor was announced), those most at risk of expropriation “had no consultation window when it mattered, and are now shut out again by an agreement they never saw and cannot read.” The letter notes the secrecy also binds the neighbouring municipalities any Kingston corridor must cross, and that Alto “drives the need, then hands the act to someone else.”
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Municipal politicians and community groups around Kingston are demanding transparency after the city and Alto signed a non-disclosure agreement on Friday. In an open letter to Kingston councillors, Rideau Lakes Coun. Paula Banks asked the city to release the studies, maps and reports it used to lobby Alto, noting any Kingston corridor “would necessarily pass through neighbouring municipalities”; Rideau Lakes has passed two motions seeking “greater clarity, transparency and meaningful consultation.” The Tyendinaga Township Landowners Coalition urged councillors not to sign NDAs: “A publicly funded project should never be hiding behind secrets.” Kingston’s agreement was concluded by municipal lawyers under a delegated-authority bylaw.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Community editorial board member Martin Buser argues Alto does “nothing” for Cornwall, whose only nearby stop would be Peterborough (and possibly Kingston). He notes SDG’s MP Eric Duncan has spoken against Alto in Parliament, that about a thousand farmers marched on Parliament Hill, and that SDG council refused Alto access to its forests and objected to signing an NDA (Coun. Jamie MacDonald: “we’re a public body… I think it’s wrong”), as did Prescott-Russell. Buser proposes building along the Highway 401 corridor or upgrading existing tracks for 200 km/h service that would still stop in Cornwall — cheaper, faster to deliver, and far less farmland severance.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Phillip Blancher (Local Journalism Initiative) reports that South Dundas passed a formal resolution on July 8 opposing Alto in its current form — the latest Eastern Ontario municipality to do so. Council objected to only one stop in the 50,000 km² EOWC region, to impacts on farmland, trails and the UNESCO Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve (crossed by both Toronto–Ottawa routes), and drew on the township’s St. Lawrence Seaway (1954–59) experience of “nation-building” expropriation and relocation. The resolution backs the EOWC position, urges coordination with VIA Rail, and encourages alternative corridors (CN/VIA or Highway 401). North Glengarry passed a similar resolution in June; both SDG and North Glengarry have barred Alto from municipally-owned lands.
Elliot Ferguson reports from Sydenham that Kingston-area citizens’ groups met Saturday to formalise their inclusion under the ALT-NO banner, forming a united front against the project. Member groups now include Alt No, North Belleville Against Alto, Rideau Lakes Against Alto, Rural Counties Action Network (NO HSR in Peterborough and Northumberland), Save Stone Mills, Save South Frontenac, Stirling and Area Residents Concerned about Alto High-Speed Rail, Tyendinaga Township Landowners Coalition, and United Front Quebec and Ontario. A coalition news release argued the project’s costs — expropriation, severed farm parcels, and permanent barriers to the movement of people, livestock and wildlife — “will fall on identifiable people in identifiable places” and outweigh the promised benefits. The groups plan joint education programmes and coordinated advocacy on farm, rural-community and environmental impacts along the roughly 1,000-kilometre route.
Elliot Ferguson reports the City of Kingston signed a non-disclosure agreement with Alto on Friday. A city spokesperson said the NDA binds all staff and councillors who receive technical information and was mandatory to obtain any technical data from the Crown corporation. Mayor Bryan Paterson defended it as common in major infrastructure planning and not an endorsement of any route or station. Alto’s Crystal Jongeward said such agreements enable two-way data sharing on preliminary working assumptions. Context: in late May the United Counties of Prescott and Russell voted not to sign and to deny Alto survey access to county land, with Warden Mario Zanth stressing transparency from Day 1. Andrew Hyett of the ALTO HSR Citizen Research Initiative: “This is not a trust-building approach.” On Tuesday, Hyett sent an open letter to councillors asking whether Kingston’s agreement was ever put to a public council vote, contrasting Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (debated publicly and refused) and Frontenac County (a recorded public vote in April). Jongeward said a further consultation round for the Ottawa–Montreal segment is expected in the fall.
Three weeks after a Kingston station officially became an option, Alto said it is too early to estimate what the addition would cost. Spokesperson Caroline Des Rosiers: “Given no decision has been made, it’s too early to speculate on the exact route, potential station location or project costs.” She said Alto is weighing construction cost, ridership, regional accessibility, technical feasibility, and economic and social benefits, and argued a Kingston station could strengthen demand and put 80 per cent of residents between Peterborough and Ottawa within 25 minutes of a rail station. The comments follow the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s $3.9-billion estimate for the detour.
Kingston Whig-Standard print edition (via PressReader) — no web link available.
Guest opinion by Noah Jarvis, Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Argues a Kingston stop would add at least 52 km, costing roughly $3.9 billion at the government’s midpoint per-kilometre rate, plus about $2.8 billion in added subsidy extrapolated from McGill’s $53.2-billion-over-43-years figure. Cites overrun precedents: California HSR (from $46.8B to $181.7B), HS2 ($38.4B to up to $192.4B), Eglinton Crosstown ($2.2B to $13B), and Finch West ($835M to $3.7B). Warns Alto’s per-kilometre cost could surpass $300 million, pushing the total near $300 billion. Notes $4.2 billion in federal planning funding and $2.8 million in Alto executive bonuses before a plan was drafted, and calls for the project to be scrapped.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry MP Eric Duncan argues the federal government should improve existing rail rather than build a new multibillion-dollar corridor, calling the project a “$90 billion boondoggle” that bypasses Eastern Ontario communities while dividing land. Duncan credited the Township of North Glengarry, the City of Cornwall, the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, and the Prescott-Russell mayors for refusing to participate and pointing instead to upgrading existing rail lines and VIA service. Notes that Cornwall and Alexandria are not currently planned Alto stops, raising concern that communities on existing corridors could be bypassed.
John Lawless reports that United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Warden Corinna Smith-Gatcke says the region has been excluded from planning: “I have received no response in regards to any projected pathways.” At a committee-of-the-whole meeting, councillors discussed a June 16 letter from Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon responding to the counties’ vote opposing the southern corridor and calling for a Highway 401 alternative. The letter said Alto will submit a refined corridor and station plan for the minister’s approval in 2026, with a final investment decision expected in 2029 — wording councillors read as signalling the project will proceed regardless of municipal objection. Smith-Gatcke voiced concern for the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, the Canadian Shield, and farmland. Rideau Lakes Mayor Arie Hoogenboom, a long-standing opponent of the southern corridor, was absent.
Kingston Whig-Standard print edition (via PressReader) — no web link available.
Letter from Bob Erwin (Ottawa) responding to June 25 reporting that Alto executives received $2.8 million in bonuses with little progress to show. Argues no taxpayer money should go to a system estimated at up to $90 billion that will likely cost far more and “never pay for itself”; worries about eliminating the livelihoods of farmers in the train’s path; questions shaving under two hours off a present-day Toronto–Montreal VIA trip against the cost; and says the money would be better spent on health care, homelessness and food banks. Calls for the executive bonuses to be donated to charity.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Michael Higgins argues that Bill C-15’s amendments to the Expropriation Act create a two-tier consultation process — one respecting Indigenous rights, another in which other landowners’ rights are trampled. The changes let Ottawa take homes, land and farms for the rail project without first attempting a negotiated purchase, and replace the former public appeal hearing with objections lodged directly to the minister of transport — the same official advancing the project. More than 100 communities lie in the path. Higgins cites a Transport Canada notice stating expropriation “will be an essential tool” to acquire the necessary lands, set against Alto’s stated commitment to negotiated agreements and independent market-value appraisals.
Letter from Darcy Pickard (South Frontenac) on the Toronto–Peterborough segment, where public awareness appears limited. MPs Melissa Lantsman, Jamie Schmale and Philip Lawrence have voiced opposition; Lawrence pressed Minister MacKinnon to release a business plan, which he refused. The City of Kawartha Lakes passed an April 21 motion opposing the project in its current form. The Kawartha Land Trust (eight properties in the corridor) and STORM (Save the Oak Ridges Moraine) raised habitat, wetland, water-quality and species-at-risk concerns; the corridor includes 28,000 hectares of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Pickering and Markham are seeking additional stops. Of 26 MPs, 26 MPPs and Toronto councillors written to, only three replied — and Coun. Brad Bradford confirmed he “has not been briefed” on the project.
Elliot Ferguson reports on a Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimate that rerouting the line into Kingston with a local station would add about 52 km and cost roughly $3.9 billion at $75 million per kilometre — the midpoint of the government’s $60–90-billion range. Ontario director Noah Jarvis argued major projects “always go over budget” and estimated Kingston would add $2.8 billion to the operating subsidy, against McGill’s finding of more than $53 billion in subsidies over 43 years. Cites Bent Flyvbjerg’s 44%+ average overrun for such megaprojects and Andrew Hyett’s work suggesting the project could reach $142 billion. In late June the federal government directed Alto to consider a Kingston station; CEO Martin Imbleau has previously cited an HS2 lesson to avoid too many route additions and changes.
Jeremy Zafran reports that Pointe-Fortune, in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges region near the Ontario border, adopted a resolution raising concerns about impacts on agricultural land, local business, the environment and long-term planning, and seeking certainty on routing. Alto replied that no final route has been selected, that the project remains in design and pre-construction and is subject to the Impact Assessment Act, and that it has met for several months with the regional county municipality and the municipalities of Pointe-Fortune and Rigaud, with another public information session promised. Alto reported its January–March consultation drew 26 sessions, more than 300,000 platform visits, over 24,000 questionnaires, nearly 20,000 comments, and 10,000+ attendees. Published Jul 7, updated Jul 11.
Alto and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a framework for collaboration across planning and design review, modelling and data sharing, hazard-risk management, climate resilience and adaptation, restoration and environmental offsetting, biodiversity and greenspace management, engagement, and property coordination — including access to public lands within TRCA’s jurisdiction. TRCA CEO John MacKenzie said the authority will work with Alto to help reduce environmental impacts and strengthen resilience across the City of Toronto, York Region and Durham Region. Alto CEO Martin Imbleau framed the agreement as part of the federal Impact Assessment. The MOU was signed as Alto wrapped its 100-day consultation and launched its developer engagement process.
A Winnipeg Sun editorial argues that Alto bears the hallmarks of Canada’s recurring habit of announcing nation-building infrastructure with great fanfare, only to watch it buckle under its own ambition. The editorial frames the $60–90 billion range as a $30-billion margin of uncertainty on a project that has not finalized its route, has not determined how trains will enter major cities, and cannot say when the first section will open. It questions the government’s projection of 43 million passengers a year by the 2080s, contrasting it with Amtrak’s Acela — which carries roughly three million passengers a year through a corridor of about 55 million people — against the Toronto–Quebec City corridor’s roughly 10 million, concluding the math does not follow the marketing. International comparators are invoked: the U.K.’s HS2 ran from roughly £37 billion in 2015 to over £100 billion before its northern legs were cancelled, and California’s 2008 plan remains decades from completion with tripled costs. The editorial endorses high-frequency rail on dedicated passenger track as the more practical starting point the federal government studied for nearly a decade before discarding, criticizes the Bill C-15 expropriation provisions as a significant erosion of property rights, and flags the nearly $2.76 million in executive bonuses awarded for 2025–26 before any track was laid. It calls for pausing the C-15 expropriation powers until routes are final, and for an independent review of ridership using reference-class forecasting rather than internal modelling.
Jeff Green reports from Kingston’s Bader Centre on the practical extinction of the northern Eastern Ontario corridor. The mandate for Alto is being asked to add an eighth stop in the vicinity of Kingston, with a new corridor map expected this fall; when asked directly about the northern corridor, Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon said it has not formally been eliminated — “but all of us are in this room for a reason, if you take my meaning.” Green notes the change spares residents in Lanark Highlands, Tay Valley, North and Central Frontenac, and Addington Highlands from further Alto-related disruption, while shifting the likely burden onto Rideau Lakes, Stone Mills, and Hastings County. Because high-speed trains cannot make sharp turns, the angle of entry to Kingston makes it more likely the line runs through rural Kingston than through South Frontenac; South Frontenac Mayor Ron Vandewal said he is “just about sure” it will not come through his township. The piece references a competing proposal — commissioned by South Frontenac resident Todd Coulbourne, prepared by rail experts Michael Schabas and Andrew Antinucci, and championed by former Liberal candidate Michelle Foxton — calling for stops in Kingston, Brockville, and Belleville, which MacKinnon’s remarks did not endorse. MacKinnon said communities along the 401 between Cornwall and Oshawa would be served by improved VIA Rail, with Kingston as a transfer hub, and claimed that with three Ontario stops in place, 80 per cent of Eastern Ontario residents would live within 20–25 minutes of an Alto station.
In a companion editorial, Frontenac News editor Jeff Green acknowledges the Kingston announcement is genuinely good news for the 12,000 households the paper serves — Alto is “dead” north of Verona and will very likely pass south of Harrowsmith, Sydenham, Inverary, and Battersea — while questioning whether the project still makes sense. Green argues the route’s clarity has been “clouded by politics,” observing that a Kingston stop makes the seat an even safer Liberal one and improves Liberal prospects in Frontenac–Lanark, where Scott Reid beat Michelle Foxton by only 5 per cent last time. His central critique is geometric: Alto’s core purpose is to link Montreal and Toronto, yet the planned route now resembles “a serpent” — Montreal to Ottawa, then a tack toward Kingston, then back northwest to Peterborough before finally reaching Toronto. He contrasts this with France, where Paris and Lyon (458 km apart) are connected directly in 1 hour 56 minutes for about $92 Canadian, whereas Toronto–Montreal (about 525 km) was estimated at roughly three hours and will be longer with stops added at Kingston, Ottawa, and Peterborough. With nine stations now contemplated between Montreal and Toronto and three places where a 300 km/h train must slow, stop, and re-accelerate, Green wonders aloud what the federal government was thinking in setting Alto’s mandate, suggesting a direct, fast, cheap Montreal–Toronto line should have been job one, with other cities added later.
In a letter to the editor, Bill Jennings of Kingston reflects on the divisions exposed at Monday’s announcement: inside the Tett Centre were local politicians and economic-development representatives who believe they stand to benefit, while outside on the sidewalk stood a group of similar size opposed to Alto on cultural, agricultural, and environmental grounds. Jennings characterizes Alto not as a “national project” like defence but as an Ontario–Quebec regional one, and notes that the government’s private-sector partner, Montreal-based consortium Cadence, has or will receive $3.9 billion to complete the design phase by 2029 while no private-sector investment toward the full $60–90 billion has been made or promised. He argues a 200-foot-wide fenced trench across the rural landscape is hard to justify for passenger rail alone, and proposes that if the trench is dug, more use should be made of it — putting freight on separate tracks to keep dangerous cargo away from dense population centres (invoking Lac-Mégantic), freeing existing lines for commuter traffic, and potentially adding a pipeline or power conduit to move more east–west. The letter closes wryly, predicting the first segment built will be Montreal–Ottawa.
Chris Knight reports on figures obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which show Alto handed out close to $2.76 million in bonuses between January 1 and July 16, 2025, with CTF federal director Franco Terrazzano noting the executives “haven’t laid a single metre of track.” The records were released in response to a parliamentary question from Conservative MP and Opposition House Leader Andrew Scheer. The total of $2,758,967.68 went to 18 officials at the executive level or higher and 116 below it — representing 100 per cent of the corporation’s officials; executive-level bonuses averaged about $68,000 each, while lower-level bonuses averaged a little over $13,000. The piece restates that Alto remains in the “development” phase with no construction start date listed, though CEO Martin Imbleau has said phased construction is expected to begin in 2029 or 2030, with the full network finished in the early 2040s.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Arthur White-Crummey reports that Ottawa city council unanimously passed a motion on Wednesday calling for greater transparency from Alto on the eventual route. Orléans South-Navan Coun. Catherine Kitts, who introduced the motion (seconded by Mayor Mark Sutcliffe), said residents of her ward “quite literally can’t sleep at night,” not knowing whether their homes or land will be sacrificed, and pointed to a drone flying over one property. Osgoode Coun. Isabelle Skalski framed limits on severing land and fragmenting farmland as “red lines,” while Alta Vista Coun. Marty Carr said a neighbourhood near the Tremblay Road VIA station sits in the way of one possible approach and demanded the opacity “stop.” River ward Coun. Riley Brockington said the open house he attended was “not a consultation” but an information session with no answers. The motion asks staff to convey limiting farmland fragmentation and minimizing private-property impact as “expectations,” and states expropriation should be “an exceptional measure of last resort.” Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Sean Devine cautioned that the motion risked asking Alto to be something other than what it is mandated to be, calling the project “historic nation-building,” yet still voted for it as it passed unanimously. Alto’s Crystal Jongeward said a second round of consultations for the Montreal–Ottawa segment is coming this fall, with another early next year, and that the alignment has yet to be refined.
Tiana May reports that Cadence, Alto’s private-sector partner, has launched a market engagement process for companies interested in the first phase between Ottawa and Montreal. The initiative is intended to give industry information about proposed early procurement activities, expected work packages, and indicative construction timelines, and is aimed at both Canadian and international businesses. Cadence will host information sessions in Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal during July, after which expressions of interest will be invited from organizations seeking to deliver major elements of the scheme. The market engagement activities are designed to prepare suppliers for formal procurement processes scheduled across 2026, 2027, and subsequent years, with a dedicated procurement information portal created for the purpose. The piece frames the Ottawa–Montreal section as the first phase of the wider programme being developed by Alto and Cadence.
Chris Knight’s fuller National Post account adds context to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation bonus disclosure. Alto, a wholly owned subsidiary of VIA Rail, paid $2,758,967.68 in bonuses for the period to July 16, 2025 — covering 100 per cent of its officials. CTF director Franco Terrazzano characterized the payments as part of a federal “entitlement culture,” calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to end it. The piece notes Alto’s operating budget rose from $51.67 million in 2023–24 to $597 million in 2025–26, attributed by government to Budget 2024 and a 2025 off-cycle to advance the project through procurement and into a co-development phase. It also reports comparable figures at VIA Rail, which awarded just over $10 million in bonuses for 2025–26 — including about $115,000 on average to eight executives — despite operating losses exceeding $350 million in each of the last five years and on-time performance of just 35 per cent last year, down from 51 per cent. Alto’s site continues to list the project cost at $60–90 billion and notes the estimate is not based on final designs or construction contracts.
Globe and Mail columnist Tony Keller responds to Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon’s call for a Kingston detour — and Alto CEO Martin Imbleau’s claim it would add only “a couple of minutes” — by asking how many extra billions it would cost and how many riders it would gain or lose. Keller’s central argument is that public-sector megaprojects fail when they are sold on a “blueskying of benefits” without obsessive attention to cost, with California high-speed rail as the cautionary tale: approved in 2008, it has spent at least US$13.8 billion eighteen years later with only a small Merced–Bakersfield section targeted for 2032 at US$36.8 billion. He notes the barriers in Canada are not technological — the Paris–Lyon TGV covers a comparable distance to Toronto–Montreal in two hours — but warns Canadian HSR will almost certainly need very large public subsidies to build and operate, with $60–90 billion being the cost even if everything goes right. Keller closes by asking whether $90 billion would deliver greater benefits invested in urban public transit, noting that VIA carried 4.4 million passengers last year while the TTC alone delivers about 2.5 million trips every weekday.
Danielle Groen’s Globe explainer contrasts Alto’s sweeping promises — productivity, prosperity, housing access, even reconciliation — against how little detail remains nearly a year after the project joined the Major Projects Office fast-track list: no precise route, uncertain number of stops, unconfirmed city entry points, and no official cost estimate. Known parameters include new grade-separated electrified tracks at up to 300 km/h, a Montreal–Toronto trip of about three hours (versus five-and-a-half on VIA), and three Ontario plus four Quebec stops — unless a Kingston station is added per MacKinnon’s “strong preference.” On cost, Groen cites the $60–90 billion range with its $30-billion margin and invokes Bent Flyvbjerg’s finding that HSR cost overruns average 39 per cent and his “iron law” of megaprojects: “Over budget, over time, over and over again.” On ridership, she sets Alto’s projection of 24 million by 2055 and up to 43 million by the mid-2080s against the entire Eurostar network (20 million annually) and Amtrak’s Acela (3.1 million last year, in a corridor with three times the population). She allows that HSR is a worthy ambition — Canada is the only G7 nation without it — while hoping more detail emerges before the 2029 go/no-go decision.
Sean Previl reports that southwestern Ontario mayors are pushing for passenger-rail improvements even as the high-speed project advances in the east. London Mayor Josh Morgan argued there are “easy, short-term things that are way less costly” that could dramatically improve rail travel from Toronto to Windsor — eventually creating a Chicago-to-Montreal connection — including a proposed customs facility in Windsor to link U.S. Amtrak riders via VIA and, eventually, Alto. Brantford Mayor Kevin Davis described how VIA trains must yield to CN freight and slow at public crossings after a 2024 CN rule change, contributing to VIA’s on-time performance falling to 35 per cent in 2025 from 51 per cent in 2024. The mayors urged Ottawa to legislate passenger-rail prioritization so faster VIA trains (the newest reaching 200 km/h) need not trail freight (limited to roughly 96–128 km/h). University of Toronto infrastructure expert Matti Siemiatycki cautioned that expanding service in the existing corridor requires detailed negotiations and costly fixes — CN owns much of the track — but agreed the federal government could play a more robust role in levelling the playing field between freight and passenger rail.
Elliot Ferguson reports that the possible addition of a Kingston station has not satisfied many opponents, with residents east and west of the city saying they remain worried. Rideau Lakes Township Coun. Paula Banks described the announcement as a “Trojan horse” that creates “strategic ambiguity” — offering just enough to make communities believe they are safe without confirming a final route, Highway 401, or relief for Rideau Lakes, South Frontenac, Leeds and Grenville, Hastings County, Peterborough, or western Quebec. Kristin Farrell of the Tyendinaga Township Landowners Coalition warned that a 401-corridor alignment would still cut her township in two, since the highway’s geography is not compatible with high-speed rail. Heather Levy of Save Stone Mills said the announcement does not answer the underlying questions about need, cost, ridership, alternatives, and governance, which remain “regardless of where a potential corridor may be located.” Havelock resident Richard Kent, though less of a priority target now, said he stands in solidarity with those along the southern route and is troubled by the farmland the south route would harm. The article notes Alto’s attention will shift in coming months to developing the southern route as the leading contender between Peterborough and Ottawa.
Dan Taekema reports that while landowners along the proposed northern corridor may have felt relief at the government’s “strong, strong” preference for a southern route, the underlying concerns persist. Robert Playfair, whose family has farmed roughly 240 hectares near Balderson since 1817, said that regardless of where the line is placed, the risk to food production and homes is not worth it for a train connecting only two provinces: “It’s not a ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome — I don’t want it for me, and I don’t want my neighbour to go through it either.” Minister Steven MacKinnon acknowledged the southern route is longer but argued it would not deter travellers, and said a Kingston stop would place about 80 per cent of the population east of Peterborough within 25 minutes of a station. Alto CEO Martin Imbleau said the “plea” from local officials had been heard and that Alto would focus on the southern corridor over the next few months, aiming to present a potential Kingston station location in the fall, while keeping the northern corridor “alive.” Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson welcomed the news; protesters outside warned of harm to the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, with Eva Leon of the Chaffey’s Area Lakes Association cautioning that once lost it cannot be regained, and Katie Koopman of Save South Frontenac noting the bottom line for most remains “No Alto.”
The federal government’s news release announces, alongside the release of Alto’s What We Heard Report, that Minister Steven MacKinnon has directed Alto to develop a plan to assess a southern route option between Peterborough and Ottawa that includes a potential Kingston stop interconnecting with VIA Rail, subject to technical feasibility and project requirements. The release states high-speed rail would cut Kingston–Toronto travel to approximately 90 minutes and place up to 80 per cent of residents between Peterborough and Ottawa within a 25-minute drive of a station. It summarizes consultation feedback from October 2025 through June 2026 and acknowledges that agricultural producers, landowners, and rural communities raised questions about property acquisition, farmland impacts, and access. The government reiterates its standard project claims: a roughly 1,000-km network at 300 km/h or more, a permanent 1.1% increase in GDP (about $24 billion annually), and more than 50,000 construction jobs. Quick facts list 26 in-person open houses, 10 virtual sessions, 31 stakeholder roundtables, more than 10,000 people engaged, over 324,000 platform visits, nearly 45,000 online comments, and 102 meetings with 29 Indigenous communities. Early procurement activities are slated to begin this year.
David Lassen’s trade-press account confirms that the transport minister has directed Alto to assess a southern Ontario route and consider a Kingston stop, announced June 22 in Kingston alongside the release of the What We Heard Report summarizing 100 days of public comment. A Kingston stop would bring the route to eight stations (four in Ontario, four in Quebec). Notably, Lassen observes that while the 134-page Public Consultation report and the 25-page Indigenous Consultation report detail participation figures — 10,280 open-house attendees, 24,142 online surveys completed — the report offers no perspective on how common or widespread any given viewpoint was among participants. He reproduces the report’s “Impact on VIA Rail Canada” section as an example, which records concerns about taxpayer funds going to private companies rather than VIA, questions about time savings and return on investment, and requests for the public release of ridership projections and the economic analysis underpinning the project. The Indigenous report raises concerns about active or potential land-claims areas and archaeological heritage. The next step is defining a narrowed corridor — no more than 1 km wide — for the Ottawa–Montreal segment to be built first.
Ryan Tumilty reports that the federal government will consider adding a Kingston stop, opting to pursue a southern route that bypasses the Highway 7 corridor. Minister Steven MacKinnon said consultation comments made clear there is demand for a city stop and that he had directed Alto to develop a southern route option, subject to technical feasibility. The piece restates project parameters: 300 km/h or more between Toronto and Quebec City, a 2029 go/no-go decision, roughly 12 years to construct, and a $60–90 billion cost. Of the two alignments proposed east of Peterborough, the northern one closely followed Highway 7 while the southern brought trains closer to Belleville and Kingston; Alto’s report found many believed leaving Kingston off was a mistake. Tumilty notes the consultations also surfaced significant rural concern about sacrificing land for a line residents would never use, and a split in views by geography. An online survey drew 24,000 responses, with 48.4 per cent very much in favour and 10.4 per cent somewhat in favour, against 35 per cent not at all in favour and 5.3 per cent somewhat not in favour.
Ted Raymond reports that Canada’s high-speed rail project could include a stop in Kingston, something local politicians have long sought. Minister Steven MacKinnon was in Kingston on Monday to announce the update to the Alto project, which would build a high-speed corridor between Toronto and Quebec City with stops in Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Laval, and Trois-Rivières. The federal government says it is asking Alto to consider adding the Kingston stop.
National Post columnist Chris Selley examines the fracturing of support for Alto in Quebec, asking why observers are surprised that the Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois now oppose the project. PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon cited Bloc cost estimates suggesting the project could reach $200 billion and argued Quebec’s share alone could be $40 billion — far above the federal government’s official $60–90 billion range. Selley notes Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon‘s statement that “there is no Alto project without Quebec,” which sits in tension with the simultaneous framing of the project as a purely federal one requiring no provincial contribution. He observes that Alto’s preliminary consultation — including maps showing potential routes across vast stretches of central Ontario and Quebec’s North Shore — effectively invited landowner opposition, especially in Mirabel, where memories of the 1970s airport expropriations remain raw. Selley is sceptical that nation-building concerns are driving the opposition, characterizing Plamondon’s framing as a “petulant flourish,” and notes the internal contradiction in simultaneously demanding $40 billion for a project the PQ says should not exist. He concludes Alto is a nation-dividing rather than nation-building project, and that Ontario communities along the route are roughly divided between those who want a local stop and those who want the project cancelled entirely.
Craig Lord (The Canadian Press) reports on Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne‘s appearance before the House of Commons ethics committee, where he defended his handling of a potential conflict of interest arising from his partner’s role as a vice-president at Alto. Champagne told the committee he proactively contacted the federal ethics commissioner when his partner, Anne-Marie Gaudet, received a job offer from Alto, and that the commissioner confirmed there was no conflict of interest given that the minister has no authority over Alto’s human-resources decisions. Champagne also voluntarily instituted a conflict-of-interest screen as a precaution; because the screen was self-initiated rather than commissioner-directed, the commissioner’s office did not post a public notice of it. Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein appeared after Champagne and largely corroborated the minister’s account, characterizing the minister’s connection to Alto as “simply too remote” to constitute a conflict. Conservative MPs challenged Champagne on whether he had violated his own screen by voting on Alto-related legislation — including a motion to strip high-speed rail provisions from the budget implementation act — but Champagne and von Finckenstein both argued that votes touching on Alto as a general parliamentary matter fall within the Conflict of Interest Act’s “general application” rule. Champagne declined to release his letter to the Prime Minister establishing the screen, deferring to the commissioner. The hearing was at times heated, with committee chair John Brassard repeatedly intervening to manage crosstalk. Von Finckenstein observed at the close of the committee that the Conflict of Interest Act is now 20 years old and should be updated.
Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette addressed Quebec City business leaders at a Chamber of Commerce event, accusing PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon of “turning its back on the Capitale-Nationale” by threatening to withdraw Quebec from the federal high-speed rail project if the PQ forms government. Fréchette described Alto as “a large-scale project that’s highly transformative, generating major benefits for Capitale-Nationale and Quebec,” funded entirely by the federal government, and reaffirmed her Coalition Avenir Québec government’s support, to repeated applause. She acknowledged the project must achieve “social acceptance” but argued it remains essential for the region. PQ MNA Pascal Paradis responded by questioning the CAQ’s credibility on regional matters. St-Pierre Plamondon had argued earlier in the week that infrastructure renewal for schools, hospitals, and roads should take priority over what he characterized as a potentially ruinous financial commitment, with Quebecers’ share potentially reaching $40 billion based on Bloc estimates. Alto currently estimates total project cost at $60–90 billion; construction of the first Montreal–Ottawa segment is targeted for 2029 or 2030.
Simon Tuck reports on the House of Commons ethics committee hearing where opposition MPs confronted Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne over his participation in more than a dozen votes related to the high-speed rail project after declaring a potential conflict of interest. Champagne said he went beyond his obligations by proactively writing to the Prime Minister last September to establish a conflict-of-interest screen after his spouse, Anne-Marie Gaudet, was hired in August as an executive at Alto. Opposition MPs argued this was contradicted by the inclusion of hundreds of millions of dollars for the rail project in Champagne’s first budget. Champagne maintained that votes of “general application” — touching on Alto as a broad parliamentary matter rather than specific decisions — are permissible under the Conflict of Interest Act. Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, appearing separately, agreed with that interpretation, characterizing Gaudet’s connection to Alto decisions as “too remote” to constitute a conflict. The Liberal majority defeated a Conservative motion to compel release of Champagne’s screen documents. Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher noted there is no evidence Champagne or Gaudet directly benefited from budget votes, and characterized the situation as not a major conflict given the government’s prior commitment to the project.
Bill Curry provides a detailed account of the ethics committee hearing. Champagne testified that the Conflict of Interest Act’s “general application” rule permits him to take part in votes and debates touching on Alto even with a self-imposed screen in place, since the project has not yet reached a specific cabinet approval decision (currently targeted for 2029). At issue is his personal relationship with Anne-Marie Gaudet, vice-president at Alto; Champagne referred to her as “someone close to me.” He received written confirmation from the Ethics Commissioner’s office on April 7 — responding to renewed Conservative scrutiny — that there was “no risk of conflict of interest and a screen is not required.” Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett pressed Champagne on what specific actions the screen had actually prevented; his responses were characterized by Bloc and Conservative MPs as evasive. Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein stated publicly for the first time that he “absolutely” agrees with the general application interpretation, describing Champagne’s connection to Alto decisions as “simply too remote.” The commissioner added that the Conflict of Interest Act is now 20 years old and should be updated. The piece situates the hearing against Quebec’s approaching October provincial election, with PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon leading in the polls and now strongly opposing the project.
Sarah McGoldrick reports that hundreds of farmers from Ontario and Quebec descended on Parliament Hill on June 10 to demand cancellation of the Alto project. The protest was led by Quebec’s Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) and drew farmers, rural residents, community groups, and industry leaders voicing concerns about land expropriation, loss of productive farmland, downloading of infrastructure costs to municipalities, and risks to ecologically sensitive sites. Farmtario estimates the project’s price tag at $120 billion with a target completion date of 2043, and notes growing opposition since the project was unveiled in February 2025. Farm groups argue the rail line threatens farmland through expropriation, disruption of market access and farm operations, and significant environmental impacts along the proposed route. Protest organizers described the June 10 rally as the opening of a broader campaign to ensure farmers and rural communities have a meaningful voice in the project’s future.
Ted Raymond covers a tourism impact study commissioned by Alto and prepared by infrastructure consulting firm CPCS, which examined tourism patterns in major Alto corridor cities and drew on international case studies from Italy, Spain, France, and Japan. The study projects that Ottawa-Gatineau could see overnight tourist increases of 1–8% and same-day tourism increases of 2–9%, translating to between $21 million and $560 million in additional spending. The authors stress the figures are illustrative and drawn from international comparators not perfectly analogous to the Canadian context, noting that those countries have higher population densities, more established rail networks, and denser clusters of recognized tourist attractions. The central finding is that tourism benefit is highly contingent on coordination: in high-coordination scenarios involving destination marketing, city partnerships, and last-mile connectivity, Ottawa-Gatineau could see per-visitor spending increase by up to 13%; in low-coordination scenarios, some business spending could decline. Alto VP of strategy and development Laurent Therrien told CTV that upticks in tourism are universal where high-speed rail is implemented, but realizing the benefits requires deliberate investment in marketing, inter-city offers, and last-mile transit.
Hundreds of farmers and rural residents from Ontario and Quebec marched past the Prime Minister’s Office to Parliament Hill on June 10, chanting “No Alto!” in opposition to the project. Dairy farmer Lise Beauchamp from Mirabel, whose land falls within the proposed route, raised concerns about the absence of clarity on farm crossings. Co-owner Bruno Proulx described a potential 50-kilometre detour if municipal road access is severed, warning “the detours generated would be a waste of time and fuel for everyone.” Brigitte Berube from the Hawkesbury area described the uncertainty created by the wide proposed route corridor: “Honestly, this not knowing — can you imagine the stress levels in our communities? It’s really brutal.” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre told the crowd his party would cancel the project and return the $90 billion to Canadians. PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon had announced on social media Tuesday he would withdraw Quebec from the project if the PQ forms government. Alto CEO Martin Imbleau said he would stay out of the political fray but warned that delaying or cancelling would leave Canadians regretting it in 2046. He also acknowledged that Alto workers conducting technical surveys have received “verbal and other threats.” Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon said the government would proceed with “great sensitivity and respect” for farmers and could not guarantee costs would not exceed $90 billion, citing ongoing route uncertainties.
Geneviève Beauchemin reports from the Alexandra Bridge, where Quebec and Ontario farmers met before marching together to Parliament Hill. Anthony Lalonde, a 17-year-old seventh-generation farmer from St-Placide, Que., warned the project “can destroy agriculture.” Opposition was particularly fierce in Mirabel, where more than 230 protesters bused to Ottawa. Mirabel farmer Sylvain Ethier described growing up with his father’s memory of 1970s expropriations for the Mirabel airport — land largely never used — and said he now drives the same tractor his father used to protest those earlier expropriations to protest this one: “We don’t want to re-live that history.” Mirabel municipal councillor Robert Charron accused the government of establishing expropriation rules that exclude fair negotiation and warned of inflamed tensions in a community that has never fully recovered from the Mirabel experience. The protest followed PQ Leader St-Pierre Plamondon’s social-media announcement framing Alto as a Canadian-unity vehicle rather than a response to Quebec mobility needs. Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon reiterated that Ottawa is footing the full bill, while acknowledging “there is no project” without Quebec. Several mayors, including Montreal’s Soraya Martinez-Ferrada and Quebec City’s Bruno Marchand, defended the project as vital for the economy, mobility, and environment.
Catherine Lévesque opens with the account of Daniel Legault of Rigaud, Que., whose family noticed an unidentified drone flying over their stables at night this spring — a detail that crystallizes the apprehension many corridor residents feel as technical surveys advance. Alto VP of communications Philippe Archambault denied the drone was Alto’s but confirmed the Crown corporation has begun tests on public grounds and will notify municipalities in advance of future surveys. Close to a thousand protesters attended the Parliament Hill rally, including Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs. A press release from l’Union des producteurs agricoles cited the risk of forced expropriations as a central concern. Mirabel city councillor Robert Charron told Lévesque he had initially supported the project until the federal budget implementation bill (C-15) granted Alto broad new powers to accelerate land acquisition, including removal of the obligation to attempt negotiated purchase first and the elimination of landowners’ right to a public hearing contesting the expropriation itself. Farmer Claude Laframboise from Mirabel feared the line would bisect his land with no local stop for his community. Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon said that of all the promoters who have brought infrastructure through Mirabel since 1969, he had never seen one as “inconsiderate” and “savage” as Alto.
Josh Pringle covers the Parliament Hill rally from an Eastern Ontario perspective, noting that the protest was organized by l’Union des producteurs agricoles and included the Coalition for Better Rail, Rideau Lakes Against Alto, Save Stone Mills, and the Tyendinaga Township Landowners Coalition. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pledged to cancel the “$90 billion Liberal white elephant” and return savings to Canadians. Karen Black of Centreville (between Napanee and Kingston) questioned how an “elite high-speed rail” breaking up rural communities makes sense when the 401 and Via Rail already don’t work. Stephan Wolf of Hammond, Ont., cited the absence of answers to basic questions from Alto: “If a project is going to cost $90 billion, we should have answers.” The piece notes that 12 Eastern Ontario mayors had signed a letter opposing the project in April, and the United Counties of Prescott-Russell had passed a resolution refusing to grant Alto access to county land for environmental studies. MP Scott Reid is sponsoring a petition that had 1,259 signatures as of June 10, and had presented 15 petitions signed by 3,357 Canadians in the preceding week. On PQ Leader St-Pierre Plamondon’s announcement, Alto CEO Martin Imbleau warned that future Canadians would regret failure to proceed.
The Canadian Press wire report from the Parliament Hill rally covers the central concerns raised by the farming community. Dairy farmer Lise Beauchamp of Mirabel cited the absence of clarity on crossings: “There are fences on each side of that train — Alto was never clear what access they will build to go from one side of the train to the other.” Co-owner Bruno Proulx described the possibility of a 50-kilometre detour if the municipal road is severed, calling detours “a waste of time and fuel for everyone.” Brigitte Berube of Hawkesbury said communities have been given only a wide range for the proposed route, leaving landowners in the dark about actual impacts on their property. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre reiterated his party’s commitment to cancel the project. Alto CEO Martin Imbleau promised both Ontario and Quebec would benefit from the corridor, warning that delaying or cancelling would be regretted by 2046, and acknowledged that Alto workers conducting technical surveys have received “verbal and other threats.” Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon could not guarantee costs would not exceed $90 billion and acknowledged ongoing “unknowns” while reaffirming the government’s commitment to the “nation-building project.”
Patrice Bergeron (The Canadian Press) reports that PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon announced on social media Tuesday that a PQ government would withdraw Quebec from the federal high-speed rail project, describing the risk of a “financial fiasco” and citing Bloc Québécois estimates that the project could reach $200 billion total with Quebec’s share at $40 billion. He called for Ottawa to transfer an equivalent amount to Quebec for provincial infrastructure priorities instead. The announcement drew immediate criticism from Prime Minister Mark Carney — who noted Quebecers voted Liberal in the last election — and from Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette, who said the PQ “doesn’t understand how this works” and that the money is not reclaimable if the project doesn’t proceed in Quebec. The mayors of Quebec City (Bruno Marchand), Montreal (Soraya Martinez Ferrada), and Laval also criticized the PQ position, with Martinez Ferrada arguing high-speed rail “should not be a partisan issue” and that cities can pursue both infrastructure renewal and major new projects. Farm organizations from Quebec, Ontario, and across Canada separately called on Ottawa to revisit the proposed corridor, citing both cost and agricultural-land impacts. PQ MNA Joël Arseneau acknowledged the party had not consulted major-city mayors before going public with the withdrawal plan. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has separately called the project a “boondoggle” and pledged to cancel it.
Dan Taekema reports on the removal — and subsequent reinstatement — of comments posted to Alto’s interactive consultation map. Jackson Garrett, 18, of Chaffey’s Lock, Ont. (~125 km southwest of downtown Ottawa, in the centre of the southern study corridor), wrote heartfelt commentary about how his father had built the family home, how the household sustains itself with garden produce in summer and firewood in winter, and how his grandmother lives just up the hill — saying high-speed rail would disrupt that family arrangement and take away the place he had grown up in. About an hour after posting, Garrett received an email from moderators saying his comment had been removed for “potentially contained inappropriate personal information.” Cicily Brewer, 84, of Toronto with property near Portland, Ont. and in the Laurentians, had all three of her comments removed; the emails (from third-party moderator Bang the Table) said her commentary had failed to respect other users and was potentially intended to harass or insult — a characterization Brewer disputed sharply, describing her commentary as gentle and supportive of the agricultural business sector. Alto spokesperson Crystal Jongeward told CBC the two cases highlighted had been removed due to human error and have been reinstated, that of approximately 18,000 comments received, 118 were removed, and that the moderator is carrying out a full review of all removals to be completed by week’s end. Both Brewer and Garrett told CBC the experience has shaken their faith in Alto’s commitment to listening; only one of Brewer’s three reinstated posts (the one pinned near Portland) appears to have been added back. Alto plans to publish a report on what it heard sometime in June.
Elliot Ferguson reports from Kingston on academic skepticism about the federal government’s framing of Alto as a “nation-building project.” Warren Mabee, professor of geography and planning at Queen’s University, argues the project’s scope is too narrow to merit the label — “It’s a project that has a very limited scope” — covering two provinces and connecting only five cities, rather than forming part of a systematic national review of rail infrastructure. Mabee proposes shelving Alto in favour of regional passenger-rail enhancement nationally, and specifically suggests that in Eastern Ontario the federal government could enhance the northern route close to Highway 7 as a dedicated freight line, freeing space along the Lake Ontario route — the high-performance-rail logic that has been advanced by community groups in the region. Civil engineering professor Mark Green, NSERC Scholar in Residence at Queen’s and a member of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, similarly disputes the nation-building framing on the grounds that the project connects only Ontario and Quebec and does not represent the rest of Canada the way the original transcontinental railway did. Green also flags Indigenous concerns: any contemporary nation-building effort, he argues, must be done in collaboration with Indigenous nations, in contrast to the negative legacy of the original 19th-century railway. The piece sets the Alto proposal against the last two regional transportation mega-projects — Highway 401 and the St. Lawrence Seaway — with Daniel Macfarlane (Western Michigan University) noting that the Seaway’s original cost-benefit analyses were deeply flawed, and that with environmental, social and invasive-species costs included, the Seaway was, in many ways, a failure. Mabee’s message to the Prime Minister: if the government wants to build a nation, the work has to be done at national scale — freight, people, existing corridors — not a single corridor between five cities.
Frontenac News editor Jeff Green sketches two distinct scenarios for the next 12 months in the high-speed rail file. In the first — the world according to Alto and Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon — the final Montreal–Ottawa route is determined by next spring, including likely tunnels under the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, with a truncated environmental assessment and construction starting in 2029 or 2030; the Ottawa–Peterborough corridor would be announced later this year or early in 2027, with extensive expropriation tools available to Alto thanks to changes to the Expropriation Act in the 2026 federal budget bill. The second — the “emergency brake” scenario — involves the federal government, Alto’s only shareholder, altering the corporation’s mandate. Green flags several signals: the Conservative Party’s recent official opposition to Alto; the Globe and Mail editorial board’s “The Costly Fantasy of High-Speed Rail”; and recent meetings between Kingston Mayor Bryan Paterson, South Frontenac Mayor Ron Vandewal and Minister MacKinnon — with Premier Ford and the Kingston mayor publicly floating diverting Alto south to Kingston via the 401 corridor. According to Vandewal, South Frontenac’s position is clear: a Kingston stop is fine, but not via the existing southern corridor through the township; and MacKinnon, per Vandewal, committed to asking Alto to look at the Kingston stop as an option — a possible indication that government may be willing to direct Alto outside its current corridor mandate, with consequent timeline implications if seriously pursued. Green tempers the optimism: recent polls reportedly showed a majority of Canadians favouring high-speed rail in concept, but those polls measured the idea, not the specifics of the Alto project — reminding opponents that the next phase needs to articulate the project’s flaws from an urban, mainstream perspective. He estimates Alto’s likely build cost at $150 billion or more, and closes with an Ottawa-insider observation that “ten billion here, ten billion there” eventually adds up to real money even by federal standards.
Philip Oddi (LJI Reporter) covers the Wednesday May 6 town hall in Casselman organized by the Prescott-Russell-Cumberland Federal Conservative Riding Association, which drew approximately 200 people in opposition to the Alto project. Mirabel municipal councillor Robert Charron warned that at least 2,000 families along the corridor would be expropriated, citing reporting and discussions he attributed to Alto leadership, and pressed attendees to adopt a “rule of seven” outreach approach — speaking with seven contacts each — framing the campaign as a marathon, not a sprint. Lanark–Frontenac MP Scott Reid centred his remarks on the project’s financial case, arguing that “what will stop Alto is the financial case.” Reid characterized Canadians as being asked to invest twice in the project — once as bondholders financing construction toward the projected 2037 completion, and again as shareholders thereafter — with returns unlikely to materialize until 2093. He described the 24-million-passenger-per-year figure in Alto’s business case modelling as fantastical, arguing it would require 100 per cent of all current air, rail and car travellers in the corridor plus another 38 per cent. Reid also referenced the $60–90B official cost range against an external academic projection of $142B (95% prediction interval $76–$264B), drawing on G7 comparator data, and translated the higher-cost scenarios into household terms: roughly $6,000 per family at the central case, rising to over $26,000 at the upper bound, with the financing horizon stretching to 2093 — a baby born this year would be 67 by the time the investment paid off. He concluded that the goal of opposition should be to force an early reassessment of the project’s viability as soon as possible. The tone of the meeting reflected strong opposition from many attendees, with applause at multiple points; the article notes a divided public conversation as Alto continues through planning stages.
A Postmedia announcement covering the upcoming public town hall: the Coalition for Better Rail, co-hosting with the North Belleville Against Alto community group, will hold a free town hall on alternatives to Alto on Wednesday, May 13 from 6–9 p.m. at the Gerry Masterson Centre, 516 Harmony Road in Corbyville (north of Belleville). The piece characterizes the Alto proposal as deeply flawed and lists the gaps the Coalition argues remain unaddressed: an independent cost-benefit analysis; a full cost estimate; a clear assessment of impacts on farmland, drainage, wildlife habitat and municipal roads specific to the routes; and fulsome consultation to ensure affected communities are adequately informed. The Coalition argues the better path is substantial upgrades to existing rail infrastructure and accessible service in current corridors: “High Performance Rail is a better alternative to Alto’s High Speed Rail.” Rather than focusing on top speed, the announcement notes, High Performance Rail focuses on what matters to passengers — on-time performance, affordable ticket prices, connectivity with other transit, positive return on investment, and environmental benefits. The article also highlights that the Quinte Source Protection Authority (part of Quinte Conservation) has announced that the proposed Alto HSR project would have significant negative impacts on sources of drinking water across its communities and does not support the proposed project — calling on the federal government instead to invest in existing passenger-rail infrastructure to enhance and improve the system in place.
Mathieu Berger (Radio-Canada) reports that the first phase of the high-speed rail network — Montreal to Ottawa — is expected to cross approximately 1,700 properties, including at least 500 agricultural lands, according to Alto. CEO Martin Imbleau told Radio-Canada Québec’s Première Heure last week that 30–40 per cent of the affected properties — roughly 500 — would be farms, requiring partial acquisition. The day after Imbleau’s comments, Alto spokesperson Philippe Archambault told Radio-Canada the figures are an estimate and that the targeted properties could fall within the project’s future 60-metre right-of-way. Michel Dignard, vice-president of the Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens (UCFO) and a farmer himself, told Berger he was surprised by the figures and had heard nothing of this scale during his own conversation with Alto earlier the same week: “If it turns out to be true, it’s a lot.” Dignard said UCFO members are anxious and that calls are coming in steadily — one member reported having received four separate access requests for different plots of land he owned — and that the timing, with seeding season just beginning, compounds the stress. He acknowledged the 60-metre final right-of-way is not wide in itself, but warned about practical farm-level severance: a corridor cutting through a 100-acre field can leave a 10–15 acre remainder that the farmer can never use again because the rest belongs to a neighbour. UCFO is scheduled to meet with Alto in the next two weeks. The piece restates Alto’s recent online commitments: prioritizing negotiated agreements over expropriation, fair long-term compensation covering market value, and preserved road access for affected farms.
CRI co-lead Lindsay Davidson, writing in the Whig-Standard, reflects on what the closing of consultation revealed. The four-month process, she observes, ended quietly — with reports of difficulty pinning comments to the map, with benign comments removed by a third-party Australian moderation service for “bad language,” and with the consultation map and accompanying materials whisked off the internet shortly after the deadline. In-person sessions were characterized by attendees as “something between a science fair and a timeshare sales pitch,” with pleasant staff but few specific answers. Davidson catalogues the ingredients she suggests Alto’s “recipe” omitted — direct notification of affected individuals, a credible project budget, and ridership projections consistent with international experience — alongside the unappetizing ones it included: overly wide study corridors, full grade separation severing farmland and rural communities, a P3 structure unlikely to be consistent with affordable ticket prices, and the planned use of glycol for de-icing along the 1,000 km route, including across sensitive environmental landscapes. The unanticipated ignition of grassroots opposition, she writes, has been instructive: many Eastern Ontario residents now understand the intricacies and realities of high-speed rail far better than they did in January 2026, and many of those same residents — people genuinely interested in better transportation for their communities — are seriously questioning the current Alto project plan. Decision makers, she suggests, may want to take note: where there’s heat, there’s fire.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Andrew Pinsent publishes the full text and analysis of his 17-minute interview with Alto CEO Martin Imbleau, which aired on News Talk 580 CFRA Saturday morning and which was the source for Ted Raymond’s CTV News Ottawa coverage of the downtown-Ottawa station question. The piece focuses on rural Eastern Ontario concerns and contains several disclosures not present elsewhere in public coverage. Land acquisition footprint: Imbleau provides a rough estimate of approximately 1,700 properties that would need to be acquired across the corridor, of which approximately 40 per cent — roughly 500 properties — would be farmland, with the caveat that no final corridor has been selected. Acquisition timeline: Land buying on the Ottawa–Montreal segment will begin in late 2026 or early 2027, ahead of the 2029 construction start. On expropriation: Imbleau directly confirms “for sure there will be some expropriation” will be required, and that opposition is expected. Pinsent’s analysis identifies the inconsistency between Imbleau’s framing of Bill C-15 as changing only the compensation challenge and the actual scope of the bill’s changes, which also include removal of the requirement to attempt negotiated purchase first, removal of the owner’s right to a public hearing challenging the acquisition itself, and shortened response timeframes. On cost: Imbleau characterizes the $60–90 billion figure not as a cost estimate but as a working assumption, with $75 billion as the current working figure; he says reliable estimates will follow detailed engineering in 2027 or 2028 after alignment selection. Pinsent observes that Imbleau argues against treating the figure as an estimate while simultaneously using it to reassure that the project is on track financially. On alignment inflexibility: Imbleau states that once a corridor is selected, moving alignment by tens of metres requires seven kilometres of straightening for the train to return to a straight track — a structural admission that consultation feedback after corridor narrowing has limited ability to move the route. Pinsent characterizes Imbleau’s response on the rural mayors’ letter as not answering the question, and notes the answer on further Eastern Ontario engagement offered no specific commitments or timeline. The piece also notes a recent Abacus Data poll showing 62 per cent of Canadians support the project in some form (25 per cent strongly, 37 per cent somewhat), 18 per cent broadly opposed, and 20 per cent undecided.
Ted Raymond reports on Alto CEO Martin Imbleau’s appearance on CFRA Weekends with Andrew Pinsent, where he largely closed the door on the former Union Station / current Senate of Canada building (Rideau Street, across from the Château Laurier) as a high-speed rail terminus. An above-ground station there is impossible — “there’s simply no space,” Imbleau said — and an underground station is questionable on both feasibility and cost grounds. He framed the requirements for any station: economic viability, no unnecessary impact on travel times, ridership uplift, and minimal construction disruption — arguing that a downtown dead-end station would force trains to slow over many kilometres on approach and departure, eroding the journey-time advantage HSR is meant to deliver. Imbleau pointed instead to the existing Via Rail / O-Train Line 1 station on Tremblay Road as a more promising option: a through station preserving Montreal-in-an-hour journey times, with land available to redeploy the sector as a multimodal transit hub combining LRT, HSR, existing Via service, and adjacent transit-oriented housing and commercial development. Federal Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon, in remarks Friday, also said the downtown site posed geotechnical problems — including the Rideau Canal running over any required tunnel, and the precedent of the 2016 Rideau Street sinkhole that delayed the Confederation Line tunnel and triggered multimillion-dollar lawsuits. Imbleau noted that more than 300,000 people visited the Alto consultation website, around 10,000 attended open houses, and the project received roughly 15,000 comments, suggestions, criticisms, and a few insults besides. A “what we heard” report is expected in June; an updated alignment for the Ottawa–Montreal first leg is expected in the fall.
Elliot Ferguson reports on the open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Minister of Transportation, and corridor MPs signed by twelve Eastern Ontario mayors and reeves representing approximately 215,000 people. The letter calls for the suspension of further development, a more comprehensive consultation with rural municipalities, and a re-evaluation of the project’s feasibility and its environmental and economic impacts. Rideau Lakes Township Mayor Arie Hoogenboom, the public spokesperson, framed the position with what has become a recurring opening: “We are not opposed to high-speed rail in principle,” while warning that the current Alto plan would bring significant disruption with little to no benefit to local residents. The mayors’ specific concerns are itemized: the absence of a transparent and credible business case with no detail on ridership or demand; the prospect of land expropriation and loss of property values; disruption to local development; environmental impact; community fragmentation; and lack of local access. Ferguson notes the federal government is not bound by municipal council resolutions, but the geographic concentration of opposition is now substantial. Signatories: John Logel (Alnwick/Haldimand Township); Claire Kennelly (Tyendinaga); Jim Harrison (City of Quinte West); Arie Hoogenboom (Rideau Lakes Township); John Wise (Stone Mills Township); Ron Vandewal (South Frontenac Township); Brant Burrow (Elizabethtown-Kitley Township); Michael Cameron (Merrickville-Wolford); Robin Jones (Village of Westport); Stephen Fournier (Drummond/North Elmsley); Karen Jennings (Montague); and Corinna Smith-Gatcke (Leeds and the Thousand Islands).
Bill Curry, Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief, reports from a Friday press conference at the Ottawa airport at which Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon largely talked down the historic columned former Union Station — the current temporary Senate — as a high-speed rail terminus, citing its proximity to the Rideau Canal and to the site of the 2016 Rideau Street sinkhole. Curry traces the political context: Ottawa’s original Union Station opened in 1912 and has not been used as a train station for sixty years; the current Via station on Tremblay Road dates from the 1960s and is now along the city’s light-rail line; and the Ottawa Board of Trade, Invest Ottawa and Ottawa Tourism have all urged a downtown HSR station. Curry also notes that Imbleau was in Quebec City this week largely ruling out Gare du Palais on similar grounds. The piece reports the federal government’s stated 2029 decision target, the $60–90B cost range, the 320 km/h target speed, and the strong opposition the project has drawn from rural communities along the proposed route. The May 1 open letter from twelve Eastern Ontario mayors is summarized at length, including their request that the Prime Minister halt further development and engage in comprehensive consultation with rural municipalities. Alto’s recent compensation web update is also covered — fair long-term compensation, overpasses and underpasses, shared access roads — as is the response from National Farmers Union vice-president of policy Phil Mount, who called the new material “empty reassurances to rural communities and farmers” aimed at urban constituents who simply want assurance affected farmers will be treated right.
Justin Ball reports that both Alto and Federal Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon have signalled a downtown Ottawa terminus is unlikely. Alto CEO Martin Imbleau, on Radio-Canada’s Première Heure Thursday, said any downtown station would have to be underground, slowing trains and complicating construction without growing ridership. An Alto spokesperson told Radio-Canada Friday a downtown station would be very difficult to do. MacKinnon, asked about the downtown option at a Friday news conference, said the former Union Station on Rideau Street — the current temporary Senate of Canada building — faces “geotechnical challenges,” noting that any tunnel would have to run beneath the Rideau Canal and pointing to the May 2016 Rideau Street sinkhole during Confederation Line construction as evidence the geology of that area is problematic. Mayor Mark Sutcliffe had backed the downtown Rideau option in January. MacKinnon left the door slightly ajar, saying the architecturally renowned former train station will be assessed and that he would not rule out exploring other sites closer to downtown. The federal government plans to build the first stretch between Ottawa and Montreal, has just closed the first phase of public consultation, and intends to narrow the current study area corridor to a roughly 60-metre final right-of-way this autumn.
Priscilla Ki Sun Hwang surveys Alto’s newly published expropriation and compensation framework. Once the corridor is narrowed this fall to a roughly 60-metre-wide final right-of-way, Alto says it will identify affected properties, send a formal letter, and assign a dedicated representative to each landowner before negotiations begin — a process expected to take several months per file. CEO Martin Imbleau told The Canadian Press: “We really want to start with a willing buyer, willing seller,” while adding that expropriation may still be used to expedite transactions even with willing sellers. Hwang lays out the substantial expansion of Alto’s tools under Bill C-15 (the High-Speed Rail Act, royal assent March 2026): the federal government has no obligation to negotiate an amicable purchase before acquiring land; in-person public hearings for landowners contesting expropriation are abolished; and Alto receives a right of first refusal on properties it has noticed, with 60 days to either match or refuse a sale. Most landowners in the current study area are not yet barred from selling, but some may see notices registered against title — either a right of first refusal or a notice preventing new works that could enhance property values. Compensation factors are listed as market value, disturbance costs (such as moving expenses), business losses, and special difficulties for hard-to-replace properties; partial takings are to reflect remainder effects such as loss of parking or awkward parcel shapes; independent appraisal is to be used, with property owners able to retain their own legal counsel and appraiser at Alto’s expense. Tenants in affected rentals may also receive compensation. On farmland: temporary access for materials storage will be compensated; contractors will be required to follow topsoil management practices and inspect tile drainage systems; Alto says it will work with municipalities, owners, and agricultural associations to site overpasses, underpasses, and access roads — access roads that, after construction, will run alongside the fenced corridor and may be shared with farmers. Lawyers cited in the piece note that legal recourse for affected owners to contest the route is limited.
Neil Sharma frames the close of consultation as a step toward what would be one of the largest Canadian infrastructure investments in decades, writing primarily for a commercial real-estate readership. The piece relays Alto’s official tally for the consultation period: 26 in-person open houses, 10 virtual sessions, 32 stakeholder roundtables, more than 10,000 participants from rural and urban communities, 324,026 unique visits to the consultation portal, 24,142 questionnaires submitted, and 19,903 comments on the interactive map — with Alto reporting 70% of in-person attendees expressed satisfaction with the information provided. CEO Martin Imbleau is quoted on Alto’s stated rationale for engaging early before alignment selection. The article reproduces the federal government’s headline economic claims — a potential $35B GDP boost and 51,000 jobs during construction — and identifies Ottawa, Gatineau, and Montreal as the markets where transit-oriented development activity is expected to be most pronounced. Sharma notes that some had expected a Toronto–Montreal first phase given the heavier traffic between those cities, but the federal decision was for Montreal–Ottawa as the first segment, which Imbleau in December described as “a logical step to optimize the project, accelerate delivery and generate tangible local economic benefits.” A June consultation report and a more precise corridor by autumn are flagged as the next milestones.
Michelle Dorey Forestell (LJI Reporter) covers the Tuesday meeting at which Greater Napanee Council unanimously passed two recorded-vote resolutions: one formally opposing both the northern (Highway 7 corridor) and southern (rural communities) routes as currently proposed, on grounds that the project would use Eastern Ontario as a throughway with no long-term local benefit; and a second supporting broader nation-building infrastructure investment but urging Ottawa to direct the project away from environmentally sensitive areas and productive farmland and toward existing transportation corridors, calling for improved Eastern Ontario rail service, and directing advocacy at the Prime Minister and Minister of Transport. Council was unanimous on opposition but split on whether to engage at all, with some members cautioning that offering alternatives could be read as legitimizing the project. Coun. Bill Martin argued for a flat rejection. Coun. Angela Hicks argued for the constructive approach: refusing to engage means leaving the town out of future discussions. Coun. Bob Norrie reported he had not heard from a single resident in favour. Coun. Mike Schenk framed the long-term affordability issue across generations. Mayor Terry Richardson struck a more nuanced tone — initially likening early concepts to “a couple of guys with a box of beer around a campfire” — but suggested there is still an opportunity to reshape the project, perhaps along existing transportation corridors. CAO Matthew Grant’s earlier April 14 report had urged council to ground its response in the likelihood the project will proceed regardless of local feedback, and noted that, as currently envisioned, the line would not stop in Greater Napanee or anywhere in Eastern Ontario outside of Ottawa and Peterborough. Dozens of emails submitted in advance pushed back on the framing as a choice between routes rather than a question of whether the project should proceed at all.
Kingston resident William Kennedy writes a sweeping letter against the project. Opening with the federal-projects-cost-overrun observation that Alto could end up at $180B rather than the currently projected $90B, he argues the Quebec portion of the proposal got it right while the Ontario inland route is wrong. Kennedy enumerates ecological consequences along the inland Ontario corridor: substantial tree biomass cleared, ecosystem and wildlife-corridor destruction, alteration of drainage patterns and wetlands, and an unprecedented number of bankrupt small farms with consequent loss of food security and fractured small communities. He predicts low ridership on the Ontario run — with business travel substituted by digital teleconferencing and inter-city visiting more often done by car — and questions Ottawa’s inclusion as a station at all. Kennedy is sharply skeptical of farebox economics, arguing ticket prices would have to be very high to cover operations, after which subsidies would be required indefinitely. His list of better uses for the money runs to affordable housing, health care, energy and renewable infrastructure, much-improved Via Rail service (including a dedicated Via line), small-farmer equipment funding, a second GO Train between Toronto and Barrie, and rebuilding the LaSalle Causeway lift bridge in Kingston. The letter closes that, in the meantime, multigenerational farming families are being stressed, harassed and threatened by the expropriation process, and as Alto consults Ontario communities and receives submissions “it is apparent that no one wants it.”
Two letters published in response to John Rapley’s April 25 column.
Tony Eastham (Nanoose Bay, B.C.), a retired transportation specialist, argues that high-speed rail is sound in the right place under the right circumstances — a 200–500 km corridor between high-population centres, with pent-up demand and an affluence to pay premium fares — but that Toronto–Montreal–Quebec City is marginal on those criteria. He projects cost escalation along California-HSR lines, expects farebox revenue to fall short of operating costs, and concludes high-speed rail would be “a money pit in Canada” with other national priorities deserving precedence. He argues a more cost-effective case can be made for upgrading existing rail links in the corridor.
Lindsay Davidson (Frontenac County, Ont.), co-lead of the Alto HSR Citizen Research Initiative, contrasts the survey of 3,000+ respondents that Alto commissioned and characterized as independent (74% informed of the project, 69% supportive, 75% wanting to use the network) with the CRI’s own survey of 354 directly affected Eastern Ontario residents during the consultation period: only 2% reported direct notification from Alto; awareness spread almost entirely through personal networks and social media; 87.8% rated Alto’s information as inadequate; and 85.7% did not believe the process was designed to register community input. Davidson argues that a project of this scale — including expropriation on a scale not seen since the Mirabel and Pickering debacles of the 1970s and serving only a handful of stations — should be held to high consultation standards.
Christopher Reynolds (The Canadian Press) reports that Alto CEO Martin Imbleau, in an interview, said the GTA could host two stations rather than the single station previously planned. The likely second station would sit in a nearby suburb, attracting passengers from the surrounding region and providing line access while the costlier final downtown leg is completed; Imbleau acknowledged downtown construction will probably take longer given the possibility of tunnelling. “Toronto will probably require a secondary station,” he said. No final decision has been made; current federal mandate covers seven stops (Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Laval, Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City), and an extra GTA stop would marginally extend the headline three-hour-seven-minute Toronto–Montreal time. Reynolds covers the Wednesday-night release of Alto’s compensation framework: a 60-metre-wide corridor between three-metre walls, market value plus disturbance and business losses, the willing-buyer-willing-seller framing balanced against expropriation as an expediter, overpasses at specified distances, and a parallel access road shareable with farmers. The piece notes Alto has not yet released a thorough cost-benefit analysis and that Alto’s projection of more than $100B in revenue and 1.21B trips in the first 40 years is far more optimistic than third-party analyses: a 2025 C.D. Howe Institute study put benefits at $15–27B over 60 years, and a McGill TRAM estimate puts ridership at 10.48M annually after 15 years (2050) versus Alto’s 24M by 2055. Two corridor options remain on the table for Eastern Ontario — the direct Ottawa–Peterborough line and the more southerly arc — with construction set for 2029 or 2030.
Ling Hui’s report, drawing on the Canadian Press wire, leans into the political backdrop. Imbleau confirmed the GTA “will probably require a secondary station,” likely in a suburb and built before the downtown leg is complete, though no decision is finalized. The Sun reframes the project’s critics around Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who in March called Alto a boondoggle and argued the money could be better spent elsewhere; Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon responded on X by saying Poilievre was showing Canadians he has no vision to create jobs and grow the economy. The article also notes the broader rural-resident and farmer opposition centred on community fragmentation, expropriation, and taxpayer cost.
Tiana May covers the close of the consultation programme for an international rail-industry readership. The piece relays Alto’s official tally for the three-month engagement — 26 in-person open houses, 10 virtual sessions, 32 stakeholder roundtables, more than 10,000 participants, 324,000+ unique visits to the consultation portal, 24,000+ questionnaires, and approximately 20,000 location-specific comments on the interactive map — with Alto reporting a 70% in-person satisfaction rate on exit surveys. CEO Martin Imbleau is quoted on Alto’s framing of having engaged early before alignment selection. The article confirms that engagement with Indigenous communities, provincial and municipal authorities, and other groups will continue, that a consultation report is expected in June, and that a more detailed corridor proposal is planned for autumn 2026. Specifications are summarized at top: speeds reaching 300 km/h or more on approximately 1,000 km of dedicated and mainly electrified tracks.
Elliot Ferguson reports on Alto’s post-consultation statement and on a contrarian voice in Kingston. Alto reaffirmed in a statement that high-speed rail must operate on fenced tracks with no level crossings, and committed to building grade-separated overpasses and underpasses for people, vehicles, animals and equipment, plus crossings spaced to allow farm-equipment movement and emergency-services response times. Lack of access between sides of the corridor has been one of the most consistent objections raised. Kingston resident Colin Burt, who works on ships along the St. Lawrence Seaway, said opposition before specific details are released doesn’t make sense, characterizing some claims (such as no crossings between Highways 41 and 38) as “riddled with exaggeration and unfounded conclusions.” Burt likened the project to a pipeline crossing his parents’ rural property — one they don’t directly benefit from but accept as a national-benefit good — and argued the St. Lawrence Seaway, which flooded communities and introduced invasive species like Zebra Mussels, had far greater negative impacts than HSR will, while still being treated as an economic asset. He sees high-speed rail as fabulous infrastructure where it has been built, valuable for mobility and modal shift away from the 401 and short-haul air. The article closes with Alto’s official tallies: more than 324,000 unique visits to the website, more than 24,000 questionnaires, and almost 20,000 comments on the interactive map; the selected route is to be announced near the end of 2026 or early 2027, with the first phase of construction on the Ottawa–Montreal section.
Sophia Laporte reports from the April 21 town hall at Crosspoint Baptist Church in Navan, where more than 500 residents gathered as the first leg of construction (Montreal–Ottawa) approaches. Hammond farmer Dave Bergeron, 60, on the dual hit to his livelihood and retirement: a neighbour with two lots has already put one up for sale because the corridor will eat into it; Bergeron expects to lose at least a quarter of his hay field, with knock-on effects for his dairy animals. On retirement: “Retirement homes now can cost you $8,000 to $10,000 a month… Now our value, the property value of our property, is not what it was a month ago.” Navan Fair board director Cheyanne Ash on a neighbour three doors down: “If he gets kicked out, where is his family going to live? He’s a family of seven. He has five kids. Where are they going to go?” Jean Saint-Pierre, president of Boisés Est (woodlot owners’ association, 200 members, ~100 within the corridor), delivered a presentation on the project’s risks and information gaps; many association members have already received Alto access-request letters. Orléans South-Navan Coun. Catherine Kitts in a statement: residents came “prepared with thoughtful questions and very real concerns,” demanding specifics on decision-making; “I cannot support any project that would expropriate homes or property from my constituents against their will or fundamentally alter the character of our communities.” MP Scott Reid (Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston) made the moral and financial case against the project: “A rail line is being built for the benefit of a very small number of very well-off Canadians… that will cut through rural areas, farmland, people who are less well off, causing far greater damage to them than the marginal advantages being offered.” Master of ceremonies Michael MacGillivray said the more he researched the project the more concerned he became, calling it a “dangerous project for Canada” and pressing for clarity. Wendell and Cheryl Watson, fifth-generation farm in the corridor: “It will devalue our property, plus neighbouring properties, potentially, not to mention the lifestyle, the noise potential.” Some attendees travelled from as far as South Frontenac and Mirabel to participate.
Read via Yahoo News (Ottawa Citizen) → Also in the Whig-Standard →
The Globe and Mail editorial board comes out against the project as currently conceived and endorses high-frequency rail on dedicated tracks as the more sensible alternative. The board frames the project through a household analogy — a family burdening itself with a luxury car it cannot afford instead of practically replacing its rusty sedan — and concludes that “the case for Alto is mired in fantasy.” Key figures cited: the $60–90B construction estimate equates to over $5,000 per Canadian household, financed through federal borrowing on top of mounting debt; Alto’s own estimate of traveller and community benefits over the 60-year appraisal period is approximately $49B — less than the projected construction cost; C.D. Howe Institute analysis (Tasnim Fariha and David Jones) puts benefits at $15–27B over 60 years; McGill University researchers estimate ridership at only 10.48 million passengers by 2050 against Alto’s 24M projection, requiring annual subsidies of around $1.28 billion with the system not self-sustaining until its 44th year. On Via’s decline: corridor on-time performance fell from 71% a decade ago to 34% last year, compounded by CN’s October 2024 speed restrictions on Via’s new fleet. The editorial endorses high-frequency rail on dedicated tracks (citing HEC Montréal’s Prof. Jacques Roy) as faster to build (perhaps five years), at roughly half the cost of HSR, with more flexibility on routing and less disruption for landowners. On time savings: HSR saves only 1 hour 2 minutes Montreal–Toronto and just 19 minutes Montreal–Ottawa compared with HFR on dedicated tracks. Historical parallel: CN’s ill-fated TurboTrain (1968–1982). Cautionary parallel: California HSR — cost tripled, scaled-back project now connects only two smaller cities. The board warns that leaving Alto as the only path forward risks paralysis, and that the fantasies of high-speed rail are diverting attention from fixes that could reverse Via’s decline today.
Globe contributing columnist John Rapley argues that scrapping the project would be a mistake, but the current Alto plan will not deliver the returns a well-designed HSR system would. Rapley’s economic case rests on agglomeration: research suggests city labour productivity rises 2–5% with each doubling of population, and the Quebec City–Windsor corridor — home to nearly half of Canada — could function as a megacity of close to 20 million if movement among its nodes were fast and seamless. He cites London’s Elizabeth Line as a transit-integration success (an estimated $3B added to city output, roughly 0.5% of the local economy) and references one study estimating a Montreal–Toronto HSR system could add as much as $60B in annual output, or 2.5% of GDP, generating revenue that could be redistributed to other parts of the country. The catch: returns of that scale require the HSR system to be tightly integrated with high-quality urban transit networks at each end, a point Rapley credits to Prof. Eric Miller (University of Toronto). His critique of Alto: the project is being structured separate from Via Rail rather than as a complement to it, may operate from separate stations, and does not yet show clear integration with existing urban transit. Rapley calls Alto “an engineer’s dream” animated by what the technology makes possible, and argues a better approach would be upgrading existing infrastructure to allow current trains to run at higher speeds — combined with seamless urban-transit connections — rather than a greenfield 300 km/h showpiece. The result, he writes, would let someone interview for a job in Toronto from Ottawa in a single day, and let academics, business spinouts, and innovation networks flow back and forth across the corridor without relocation.
Two Toronto Star letters respond to ALTO President and CEO Martin Imbleau’s April 17 op-ed (“If Canada wants to lead, it has to catch up first”).
Claude Gannon (Markham) challenges the implicit comparison to European HSR networks, arguing that successful international systems are sustained by extensive transit feeder networks Canada does not have. He raises practical questions: where would the customers come from, how would they reach pickup points, and would the service eliminate the need to own a car? He flags Canada’s harsh winters as a structural challenge for rail reliability, noting how often the UP Express link between Union Station and Pearson Airport itself falters. His proposal: build a short pilot HSR line between two hub cities (he suggests Calgary–Edmonton) and see how it performs through a Canadian winter before contemplating longer corridors. He also urges reviving abandoned CN and CP rail lines that once served smaller communities — building the feeder network needed to channel riders into any future high-speed mainline.
Gary Magwood (Plainfield, Ont.) argues Eastern Ontario is a distinctive landscape within a two- to three-hour drive of Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston, only a few kilometres from several smaller cities and towns, with significant recreational value, ecological diversity, and irreplaceable farmland. Carving up that landscape for high-speed rail, he writes, would be “an assault on the region.” His alternative: invest in upgrading the VIA tracks to create a high-frequency rail system that would not massively disrupt people’s lives.
Read via PressReader: pressreader.com
Elliot Ferguson reports on the close of Alto’s first round of public consultation, which wrapped up Friday night after three months. Alto held more than 70 open houses, about 15 online information sessions, and collected close to 15,000 submissions on its online portal. The Crown corporation framed the early-stage consultation as deliberate: “We chose to engage early, before defining a specific alignment, so that input from residents, municipalities, Indigenous communities, and organizations could directly inform technical analyses and design decisions.” Alto says the feedback “plays a key role in refining the study corridor, particularly in identifying areas and issues that require special attention.” The 10-km-wide study corridors include the southern route through rural municipalities around Kingston. A second round of consultation will follow once a preferred route is selected near the end of the year, with more specific information about the project. “Every contribution matters. Whether it is a question, a comment, or a concern, all feedback received is taken into account and directly informs our teams’ work.”
May require a Postmedia subscription: thewhig.com