(Thinking this discussion ought to shift back to the Alto thread?)
Some of the legislative thrust may just be boilerplate - in the sense that the existing Canadian law does set out a preliminary hurdle where someone (a Minister or Tribunal usually, but this is where the matter can be taken to the courts and challenged) has to determine at the outset that the proposed works are "of benefit to Canada".
In the case of Alto, the legislation simply fast forwards past that hurdle by declaring that the project is indeed of benefit to Canada. That declaration probably disarms many of the legal challenges that have arisen in Florida, Texas, and California and would likely arise here as well. That's a prudent and proactive step - and justifiable given that Canada has a rich library of past studies and proposals, most of which did conclude that something HSRish was worth building.
I can't agree more with
@Urban Sky - an ounce of consultation avoids a pound of opposition or litigation - but as we are seeing in those other areas, litigators will reach for all possible levers, and consultation often simply results in demands that amount to delay tactics - and then to allegations that consultations were insufficient or insincere. There will definitely be winners and losers, in routing and in individual property outcomes. It's a good thing to set expectations at the outset so no one believes there must be perfect consensus before proceeding.
It remains to be seen if the routing and land decisions are generally made objectively and fairly. (At least this is being done in Ottawa with some professional guidance - in Ontario these decisions are influenced by whoever has DoFo's private phone number). And assuming the route selection largely follows the former CPR and CNR lines where these are available, the number of route-miles, acres and number of individual land owner impacts is not as overwhelming as it may sound.
Acts of Parliament remain subject to legal challenge, and the Alto legislation is no different - and we have not passed the point where someone might challenge the whole plan. There may still be some of that, possibly around how the price of expropriated land is determined. Personally I'm willing to give Ottawa some slack here, although I agree that transparency is paramount.
- Paul
PPS - we have come a long way from the days when the St Lawrence Seaway was built, with whole towns being relocated and old ones flooded. If today's consultative and assessment regimes were in place in the 1950s, that infrastructure would never have been built. Maybe this is a good place to find a happy medium.
