Article content

The federal government’s $3.9-billion commitment to high-speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto may seem like a bold investment in Canada’s infrastructure future. However, a closer examination reveals a different reality: this amount only covers feasibility studies and initial design work — costs that typically account for only five per cent of a project’s total expenses. If the preliminary bill is nearly $4 billion, the final price tag could easily surpass $80 billion.

Article content

Article content

Article content

By breaking the costs into phases, the government has managed to soften the public’s reaction, deferring the real fiscal reckoning to a future announcement. From a strategic perspective, this phased approach may not be a bad idea. Spending billions on feasibility studies should at least allow the next government to pull the plug if a more detailed analysis reveals that the construction costs outweigh the benefits.

But there is another political calculation at play: by committing $3.9 billion now, the Liberals are ensuring that a future government — potentially one less enthusiastic about massive public spending — will find it harder to cancel the project outright. A sudden announcement of an $80-billion rail project at a time of economic uncertainty and trade disruptions would have been met with strong opposition. Instead, a more digestible $3.9 billion keeps the project alive while avoiding immediate political fallout.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the federal commitment to high-speed rail, he acknowledged that the project would bind future governments to a financial obligation at a time when balancing budgets is a pressing concern. Yet, both he and Transport Minister Anita Anand, the architects of this multi-billion-dollar commitment, have already declared they will not seek public office in the future.

Article content

Article content

This raises a critical question: is the announcement a genuine commitment to nation-building, or a political maneuver that forces future governments into a spending plan they may not support?

Trudeau has framed this as a transformative infrastructure project, but its benefits will be largely confined to the two most populous provinces — Ontario and Quebec. For Canadians outside these provinces, the announcement may feel like yet another example of disproportionate regional spending. If this project truly embodies the spirit of national development, then other similar proposals — such as high-speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton — should also receive serious federal consideration.

Canada has seen ambitious transport projects before, and not all have delivered value to taxpayers. The Mirabel Airport in Montreal, once envisioned as a game-changing piece of infrastructure, ultimately became an expensive failure, offering little discernible benefit. The risk remains that this high-speed rail initiative could follow a similar path — absorbing billions in public funds while failing to generate the ridership or economic returns necessary to justify its cost.

Article content

Currently, VIA Rail’s Quebec City–Montreal–Ottawa–Toronto corridor serves fewer than five million riders per year. Even under optimistic projections, it is difficult to envision ridership levels increasing enough to justify a $80-billion capital expenditure, let alone the additional operating costs. There may be non-financial justifications for the project, such as national cohesion or promoting sustainable transportation, but these arguments must be weighed against the reality that automobiles will continue to dominate travel between these cities.

Interestingly, two infrastructure projects, each estimated to cost over $80 billion, are making headlines in Canada. In addition to high-speed rail, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s proposed Highway 401 tunnel in Toronto also falls into this category. Historically, large-scale rail projects have enjoyed greater public support than major highway expansions, with transit advocates often viewing rail as a more sustainable investment.

However, there is a crucial distinction: while the 401 tunnel is almost certain to attract hundreds of millions of vehicle trips annually, the same cannot be said for high-speed rail, which is likely to struggle to generate the ridership needed to justify its immense cost. A recently released report by the C.D. Howe Institute observed that a “dedicated high-frequency or high-speed passenger rail link in the Toronto–Québec City corridor could deliver between $11 billion and $27 billion in cumulative benefits over 60 years. That’s way short of the $80 billion in costs.

Article content

Future governments will now face a difficult choice: either honour the commitments made by an outgoing administration or abandon the project to realign spending with new priorities. The decision will not be easy, but Canadians must demand transparency and accountability in how their tax dollars are allocated — especially when the price tag runs into the hundreds of billions.

Ultimately, Canadians must recognize that infrastructure spending — whether on rail or roads — comes from the same pool of taxpayer dollars that funds healthcare, education and trade. Shiny new high-speed trains and underground highways may be exciting, but they must be evaluated based on their value and returns for taxpayers, not just their political appeal.

These projects could be bold investments in the future, or costly examples of tunnel vision. The challenge is to make informed, rational decisions that ensure the best possible use of public funds.

Murtaza Haider is the associate dean of graduate programs and the director of Urban Analytics Institute at the Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University. Stephen Moranis is a real estate industry veteran. They can be reached at the Haider-Moranis Bulletin website, www.hmbulletin.com.

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.

Article content