Kalshi on X - "JUST IN: NASA announces $20 billion plan to build permanent moon base"
Daniel Foch on X - "Why does it cost less to build a base on the moon than high speed rail from Toronto to Montreal"
Clearly, the benefits of high speed rail are so great that no matter how expensive it is, it'll be worth doing
Canada’s next budget bomb is the Alto high-speed rail project: Jerome Gessaroli in the Globe and Mail - "Without a single track laid, the Alto high-speed rail project is barrelling toward a costly fiscal reckoning. Size is a major factor. Alto is estimated to cost $60-billion to $90-billion and cover more than 1,000 kilometres. For an infrastructure project of that scale, even minor planning errors can add billions in public costs. Compounding that risk, Ottawa has proposed accelerating construction by roughly four years, effectively locking in fiscal and political commitments before routes, station locations and land requirements are resolved. There is nothing wrong with wanting Canada to pursue large projects that could add long-term value. Ambitious infrastructure can play a constructive role in economic development and national cohesion. Concern arises when an initiative is sold through aspirational language – described as a “game-changer,” a “generational investment” or a way to “turbocharge” the economy – before its costs, scope and risks are clear. That framing builds political momentum that constrains scrutiny and makes it harder to revisit assumptions as new evidence emerges, often resulting in higher costs for taxpayers and less than promised for future users. Yet Alto is being pushed forward despite key unanswered questions – including where the line will run, where stations will be located, how the train will enter major cities and what land must be acquired. International best practice, including guidance from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and research by economic geographer Bent Flyvbjerg, cautions against committing to large infrastructure projects before routes, costs and delivery risks are clearly understood. Accelerating a project of this scale under such conditions increases the likelihood that practical problems will emerge only after political and financial commitments are locked in. Canada has limited experience in building true high-speed rail. Even European countries with decades of experience often face major delays and cost overruns. Canada would be undertaking this for the first time, in an economy that has for years struggled to deliver infrastructure projects on time and on budget. A 2018 European Union audit found high-speed rail projects across the union experienced average cost increases of 78 per cent over original estimates. If jurisdictions with established expertise face increases of that scale, the fiscal risks for a first-of-its-kind Canadian project are inevitably higher. Canada has a recent record of large overruns on projects less complex than high-speed rail. Metrolinx says Ontario Line construction costs have nearly doubled since an original $10.9-billion estimate. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion’s final cost of $34-billion was about $28-billion above its original estimate. If projects of lesser complexity can go so far off course, a $60-billion to $90-billion high-speed rail carries fiscal risk on a different order. Political urgency cannot override complex engineering realities. The real question is how expensive Alto would be for the travel time it saves. Publicly available estimates suggest that high-speed rail on the Toronto–Quebec City corridor would reduce end-to-end travel times by roughly four hours compared with today’s service. On that basis, the project implies capital costs of roughly $250-million to $375-million for each minute of travel time saved. For context, the 2018 audit of EU projects found average costs of €90-million a minute saved ($146-million), though there was wide variation between lines. Alto appears well above that average. It is also useful to compare costs on a per-kilometre basis. High-speed rail lines in Europe have averaged about €25-million per kilometre, or roughly $40-million, according to the same EU analysis. For a corridor of about 1,000 kilometres, Alto would imply costs of about $60-million to $90-million a kilometre – again, materially higher than Europe. A 2025 C.D. Howe Institute report estimates high-speed rail could deliver $15-billion to $27-billion in benefits, ranging from faster and more reliable travel, reduced road congestion, improved economic connectivity and lower emissions. These benefits exclude operating revenues, and the report does not assess whether total benefits exceed the project’s costs. Even so, the benefits identified are modest relative to the capital investment required to build a high-speed rail line. Proponents of Alto also point to the use of public-private partnership to manage some fiscal risk. While this approach can shift some delivery and performance risks to private partners, cost increases from design changes, land acquisition, permitting or delays ultimately fall to government. For a project of this scale, taxpayers remain the backstop if costs rise or assumptions prove optimistic. The economic case for the full Alto corridor hasn’t yet publicly cleared a conservative cost-benefit test. Earlier federal analysis suggested the Montreal–Ottawa–Toronto segment was more plausible than the full Toronto-Quebec City corridor. The much higher costs now being discussed only further raise the bar to deliver corresponding benefits. The core issue with Alto is premature commitment. Best practice uses solid business cases to decide whether a project should move ahead before political commitments are locked in. Ottawa should lean on the brakes until that business case exists."
High speed rail is another Liberal legacy project without a plan - "Conservatives agree: Canada should be building more, building smarter and building faster. But Alto, announced in the final days of Justin Trudeau’s premiership, doesn’t reflect that kind of smart ambition. It looks more like a legacy project — another big promise without any clear plan to deliver. Conservatives have made our position clear, but doubts are being raised within the Liberal party too, with Liberal MP for the Bay of Quinte, Chris Malette, coming out in opposition to the project proposal. It is surprising that Prime Minister Mark Carney doubled down on this megaproject without any public fiscal review, independent scrutiny or even a feasibility report. Creating a new state‑run high‑speed rail corporation to build a Toronto–Quebec City line in an already well‑serviced corridor, at a projected cost of at least $90 billion or more, is a serious undertaking. Canadians are already facing a cost-of-living crisis with the highest food inflation in the G7 and record food bank use, along with record deficits that have risen to the highest ever under Carney (outside the pandemic). After doubling the debt, Carney is going to add another $90 billion, costing every family around $8,000 for a train most will likely never ride. There’s another cost that often gets overlooked. A $90‑billion crown corporation doesn’t just cost money; it kills competition and potential private sector investment. It risks crowding out the private bus lines and regional innovators that could actually drive prices down for students and young workers. When government dominates a corridor, alternative services struggle to compete, even when they deliver faster, cheaper or more flexible options. That’s not how you build an affordable, innovative transportation system. Conservatives support building infrastructure that expands opportunity — especially projects that attract private capital, encourage innovation, create jobs and grow the tax base. Of the 15 “national interest” pre-existing projects referred to the Major Projects Office, 14 are primarily financed by private companies or ratepayers. Conservatives support all fourteen because they follow a proven model: private expertise, private capital, and shared risk, with government focused on clear rules and timely decisions. That’s why Conservatives have long pushed for faster approvals and regulatory reform. Imagine a Canada where federal permitting takes months, not years; where housing, transit, clean energy and trade infrastructure can move at the speed of ambition. Young Canadians understand what delay really costs: fewer homes, slower climate progress and fewer opportunities to build a future. Builders should bring their best ideas and real investment, not simply bid on projects where taxpayers and consumers carry all the risk. Alto fails that test. Despite being labelled a “Progressive Public-Private Partnership (P3)” funding model, until the Cadence consortium actually invests in the project — which is not slated to happen until stage four — the taxpayer, not the private sector, is on the hook. Taxpayers would fund the design and construction, while private partners face little consequence if costs rise or timelines slip. Conservatives believe risk should be shared and incentives aligned because that’s how projects get built on time, on budget and with room for competition. Canada has learned this lesson the hard way. Major rail and transit projects across the country — from Ottawa’s Confederation Line to Toronto’s Eglinton Crosstown — have suffered delays, overruns, scope reductions or outright cancellation. Global evidence shows rail megaprojects average a 44.7 per cent cost overrun even after contingencies. Young Canadians, already under financial pressure, are the ones left paying for these miscalculations. Yet the government still hasn’t made a clear public case for why Alto is necessary. There is no public cost‑benefit analysis, no credible business case and no explanation of the trade‑offs. A recent McGill University financial analysis concludes that, even with strong ridership, the system would still require ongoing public subsidies, because fares would not cover operating and financing costs. Alto won’t help Canadians for years. Conservatives would deliver improvements within a single parliamentary mandate and we could be doing much of that work right now. Instead of tying up billions in a single long‑dated megaproject, Conservatives would focus on delivering better outcomes sooner. We would start by fixing what exists: improving VIA Rail’s performance, where subsidies have increased even as service has declined. We would work with Ontario to fast‑track the runway expansion at Billy Bishop Airport, unlocking new regional connections without new operating subsidies. We would partner with provinces and the private sector to encourage regional rail that integrates with existing bus and transit networks. These are solutions that expand choice and deliver real improvements along the Toronto–Quebec City corridor in the near term rather than decades from now. Conservatives are putting forward a plan that delivers more options, faster service and better value, all with less debt. We believe Canada is ready to build again. But that requires proper risk sharing, strong competition and respect for taxpayers and riders alike. Unfortunately, the government has not made a public case that justifies a minimum of $90 billion in borrowed money, nor has it reformed permitting or improved existing transportation options for the people who live along this corridor. Building a great nation doesn’t require government to drive the train. It requires government to clear the tracks so competition can thrive, builders can build, and young Canadians can move forward with confidence."
Editorial: A fast track to 50 years of losses - "The project is estimated to cost a staggering $80 billion, according to a November report by McGill University. The government has said high-speed rail would cut passengers’ travel times in half, increase tourism and housing development, and boost the economy. But it is unlikely these presumed benefits will outweigh the project’s vast costs. The McGill report projects Alto would lose money for 47 years after the line becomes operational. And even this long timeline may be too optimistic. Ahmed El-Geneidy, a McGill University professor and one of the report’s authors, told Canadian Affairs in December that this estimate was based on numerous generous assumptions. “We gave them the benefit of the doubt [that] the demand is going to be really, really increasing very much,” he said. In particular, they assumed actual ridership would match Canadians’ self-projected ridership levels. In their survey, one-third of Canadians living near proposed high-speed rail stations said they would use the line at least once a year. Respondents also said they would be willing to pay, on average, just $20 more for a high-speed ticket than current Via Rail fares. A number of factors here should give readers pause. One is that people’s actual behaviours often differ from their stated ones. It seems possible, even plausible, that actual demand could come in much lower, especially if Alto’s prices are higher than projected, or if alternative travel methods become more attractive. Self-driving cars and air taxis may sound like a thing of the future (or a Jetsons past), but are already operating in many parts of the world. Driverless taxis are available in about a half-dozen U.S. cities, as well as several cities in China. Even in Canada, Tesla’s EVs already have robust self-driving capabilities, though drivers are required to remain attentive. If, a decade from now, self-driving cars are widespread, travel could look very different. Ask yourself: would you travel by train if your car could shuttle you comfortably from Montreal to Toronto while you watched Netflix in the backseat? In short, conservative demand assumptions may be more appropriate. If so, Alto could lose money for well more than a half-century. Another concern is the opportunity cost. For what Alto is expected to cost, governments could complete rapid transit systems in most of Canada’s major cities, Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, told Canadian Affairs. Siemiatycki identified a laundry list of systems the government could complete for the same price: Toronto’s Eglinton crosstown extension; Vancouver’s SkyTrain extension; Montreal and Quebec City’s LRT projects; and Calgary’s Green Line. Once those were done, you’d still have $10 billion to fix the existing VIA Rail network. “This is just a staggering amount of money,” he said. Think about the daily and widespread benefits such transit projects would deliver to the majority of Canadians who live in major urban centres. By contrast, consider how few Canadians would benefit from this high-speed rail corridor. On top of this, it is primarily affluent and Eastern Canadians who would benefit. This risks fostering regional divisions at a time when Canada can ill-afford more causes for them. Albertans (and others) would rightly be able to point to this project as yet another example of a federal policy decided by Laurentian elites that literally favours Laurentian Canadians. To their credit, the Conservatives seem more attuned to this concern... Alto is one of the infrastructure projects that will have the support of the Carney government’s Major Projects Office, an office created to selectively fast-track “nation-building” projects. Alto, like the office itself, is ill-conceived. The office risks leading to politically appealing projects being blessed by government officials without being rigorously justified. It is especially galling for the government to be moving ahead with this project now. There is so little demonstrated demand for it, a long list of nationally-distributed transit projects where the money could be better spent, and simmering separatist sentiment out West. Alto isn’t a nation-building project. If anything, it’s the exact opposite."
Poilievre says government should cancel Toronto-Quebec City high-speed rail project - "Residents in those areas have been raising concerns about what the project would mean for their land — and pushing back against the idea that property could be expropriated."
Left wingers were frothing at the mouth, of course, since this combined their hatred of PP with their love of trains
We are told that building highways is bad because it results in land expropriation and dividing communities. But of course that doesn't matter when it comes to rail
Canada pledges $200 million to "spaceport" that is just a concrete pad - "the Carney government trumpeted its “historic” plan to develop a “sovereign space launch” capability that would allow Canada to launch satellites without relying on American help. There’s just one problem: Canada’s plan to do this involves sending the equivalent of $50,000 per day to Spaceport Nova Scotia, a concrete pad in rural Nova Scotia that has launched precisely two rockets, one of which was built by a university rocketry club... But despite officially breaking ground four years ago, the latest Google Maps images of the site show little more than a concrete pad and some basic access roads. Local activist Marie Lumsden, a member of Action Against Canso Spaceport, found much the same in a visit to the site last month. Against photos of the sparse amenities, she wrote that the space port consists of “a gravel road, two sea cans, and an un-serviced 25-by-35-foot concrete pad.” In an investor presentation just this month, Maritime Launch Services said that the site could support up to 150 satellite launches per year. But to date, it’s only launched two rockets, neither of which reached space. The first, in July 2023, was by a York University student group. The second, last November, was the test launch of a single-stage rocket by the Dutch firm T-Minus Engineering... For 2025, MLS’s financial statements show it only brought in $14,980 in revenue, all of which was recorded as “lease income.” This was against operational losses of $3.8 million. The year prior, there was no revenue, and operational losses of $3.4 million. The $200 million agreement with the federal government is actually the second time in six months that Maritime Launch Service has struck a multi-million-dollar funding deal with the federal government. In October, Export Development Canada approved $10 million in development funding for the company. Canada was the world’s fourth country to put a satellite into orbit with the 1962 launch of Alouette 1. But Canadian satellite launches have traditionally been performed on U.S. soil. The reason is partially one of geography. Satellite launches are easier to perform at lower latitudes due to the simple fact that the ground is moving faster in relation to space; land at the equator is spinning at 1,670 kilometres per hour, while at the North Pole it’s barely moving. This is why the European Space Agency performs most of its satellite launches at a site in French Guiana just north of the equator. NASA, similarly, does all its major launches from Cape Canaveral, which is located near the southern edge of the contiguous United States. As to why Maritime Launch Service claims Nova Scotia is the “most desirable” location on the continent, they say it’s because the site is uniquely free of obstructions, owing to open ocean to the east and south."
Roman Baber on X - "I'd love to have high speed train! Problem is $90 billion dollars for Alto will turn into half a trillion. The train will NEVER be built. But lots of Liberals will become rich at your expense. Just like with this stupid launch pad."
Toronto Culture | Facebook - "A Toronto-linked fintech startup says Canada pushed them out just as their business was taking off. Internet Backyard, co-founded by Gen Z entrepreneurs Mai Trinh and Gabriel Ravacci, relocated to the U.S. after struggling with Canada’s fintech infrastructure, venture capital access, and immigration timelines. The founders point to limited billing systems, a fragmented VC ecosystem, and long visa processing times that made it difficult to scale from Canada. They say the federal Startup Visa Program backlog can stretch close to a decade, while rising CRS scores often force founders to take traditional jobs instead of building companies. After moving south, the company incorporated in Delaware and raised US$4.5 million in a single week at a US$25 million valuation. Easier access to capital, talent, customers, and faster founder-friendly visas played a major role. The company is now valued at roughly $35 million, highlighting ongoing concerns about Canada’s ability to retain high-growth startups."
Charles Lammam on X - "Canada's startup exodus is accelerating. Nearly one of every two Canadian founders who raised over $1 million in 2024 are now based in the U.S. That's up from about one in five just a short time ago."
J.J. McCullough on X - "It’s fine, we’ll still call them “Canadian” for the rest of their lives, take credit for their accomplishments, award them the Order of Canada, and refer to them as “Canadian businessman” in their CBC obituary when they die in the US fifty years from now."
Time to "tax the 'rich'", impose a wealth tax including on unrealized gains and make the "rich" pay their "fair share"
Upto 40% of Canada’s top 1% income earners have moved to the US : r/TorontoRealEstate - "Keyword here is top 1% “income”, not wealth. Boomers with multi million dollar real estate portfolios are staying put while young people with high paying jobs like tech are leaving Canada in droves. More devastating is, the report estimates upto 50% of top 10% earners in Canada have moved to the US. Yet, the other insane stat is you need to have a top 5% income level to afford a median home in Canada. Apparently half of the people that can afford homes are leaving the country. And yet, every Canadian sub calls for more income taxes which basically kills any upward mobility and pushes smart young people out. We need to fundamentally rethink how income tax rates."
Court grants interim injunction pausing Rossland magnesium mine construction - "Construction on the proposed Record\ Ridge mine near Rossland, B.C., will be paused after the B.C. Supreme Court granted an interim injunction to groups opposing the project. The Save Record Ridge Action Committee Society (SRRACS) and Sinixt Confederacy were opposed to the open-pit magnesium mine in the west Kootenays, after the province's Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) had ruled that it wouldn't require an environmental assessment certificate... The decision has been welcomed by local residents who have been fighting the mine for years."
Build Canada! Canada Strong!
Parliamentary budget officer forecasts deficit rise: $68.5B - "Stupefying," “shocking” and “unsustainable” -- those were just some of the words Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog used Thursday to describe his scathing forecast for federal finances ahead of a long-anticipated fall budget. Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer Jason Jacques published an updated economic and fiscal outlook on Thursday where he projected the federal deficit would balloon to $68.5 billion this year, up from an estimated $51.7 billion last year. He also expects the federal debt-to-GDP ratio -- previously a major fiscal anchor for Ottawa -- will no longer decline in the coming years. Jacques told a parliamentary committee Thursday afternoon it is the first time in 30 years he has seen a projection where that key metric rises over time... “I think everybody should be concerned,” Jacques told MPs on the government operations and estimates committee. “We’re hoping, and certainly expecting, the government as part of Budget 2025 to clearly indicate what the government plans to do to address ΓǪ this problem, because it’s certainly not sustainable.”"
Left wingers think money is fake anyway
Pierre Poilievre on X - "194 days. That’s how quickly Germany built the Wilhelmshaven LNG import terminal, start to finish. If Germany can build that fast, why can’t Canada? Let’s get our energy to Wilhelmshaven and across Europe to fuel free nations with Canadian energy."
Shannon Stubbs on X - "BREAKING: Canadian Natural Resources, one of the largest independent crude oil and natural gas producers in the world, will PAUSE their $8.25 billion oil sands mine project because of "regulatory uncertainty". According to them, the federal industrial carbon tax has created "uncertainty and economic burden for a long-term growth investment." The truth is, anti-development Liberal laws are still in place and continue to push investors and builders to other countries with clearer rules and more predictability. Conservatives will repeal anti-development Liberal laws like the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada self-reliance, sovereignty, united, and affordable."
Ryan Williams Bay of Quinte | Facebook - "Canada is the world’s 4th largest oil producer. And yet Canadians still face an oil crisis. Why? Because for the last decade Canada has been waging a war on its own energy sector. The Globe and Mail just reported something that should embarrass the entire political class: Even today, Canada still does not have an east west pipeline connecting our own oil to our own country. In 1973, during the Arab oil embargo, Canada literally had to ship oil from Vancouver through the Panama Canal to reach Eastern Canada. Fifty years later… we still haven’t fixed it. Instead we did the opposite. Over the past decade Canada:
• Cancelled major pipelines like Energy East and Northern Gateway
• Passed Bill C 69, making major projects almost impossible to approve
• Blocked LNG development while the world begged for supply
• Forced our own refineries in Eastern Canada to import foreign oil
Today most of the oil used in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada still comes from the United States or overseas, even though the oil comes out of the ground in Alberta. Let that sink in. Canada exports crude south… then imports refined fuel back north to run our own economy. Now the world is facing another oil shock. The war in Iran has threatened the Strait of Hormuz, where about 20 percent of the world’s oil supply moves every day. Prices briefly surged near $120 per barrel, and analysts warn extreme scenarios could push oil toward $200. And Canada… an energy superpower… is still vulnerable. Not because we lack oil. Because we lack leadership and infrastructure.
How to fix it
1. Build east west energy infrastructure. Canada should never again need foreign oil to power its own provinces.
2. Scrap Bill C 69 and unblock major projects. Canada must be able to approve pipelines, LNG terminals and energy infrastructure again.
3. Build LNG export capacity immediately. The world needs reliable energy. Canada should be supplying it.
4. Treat energy as national security. Energy independence protects families from global crises.
Canada has the oil. Canada has the gas. Canada has the reserves. What we’ve lacked for the last decade is the political will to use them."
