News   Apr 02, 2026
 167     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
 373     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
 576     0 

VIA Rail

Guys, I think we may be getting a bit off topic here with the GST/tax remittance transit discussions...

Let's try to get back to VIA/HFR, etc. :p

Well we are talking about whether there should be HST on VIA tickets, so I'd say that's VIA related...

Anyway, to sum up: If I understand correctly, my statement should have been that VIA tickets (and other intercity tickets) should be deemed non-taxable, and VIA (and other operators) should receive a GST/HST credit for the HST they spend directly operating the service (fuel, parts etc).
 
Given that both VIA and the CIB are crown corporations, is it normal to have this little in publicly available documentation? We've reached the stage of the HFR project having funding allocated in a federal budget, so I'd expect at least a modicum of scrutiny on what the funding is actually being used for? I'm surprised at the fact that any report from the JPO will come after the budget proposal.
I can see a few interpretations to this.

The most generous one is that they don't want the airlines to lobby against them, so they're keeping it quiet.

The other interpretation is that it would be a failure in some way (too expensive, too slow, not enough passengers) and they don't want us to know.
 
The feds in general are notoriously secretive in almost all their work. The province is an angel of open book government by comparison. I'm sure it'll be released eventually, but they are in no rush.

Someone should be filing an FOI for the info.
 
I can see a few interpretations to this.

The most generous one is that they don't want the airlines to lobby against them, so they're keeping it quiet.

The other interpretation is that it would be a failure in some way (too expensive, too slow, not enough passengers) and they don't want us to know.

My interpretation is they don't want to compromise the negotiations for acquiring the ROW. If VIA were to release the price the expect to pay for the ROW, that would then tell the owner how much VIA is willing to pay and make it more difficult for VIA to negotiate effectively and get the best possible price.
 
^ I can’t imagine that land acquisition is the issue. It might be if there were choices of route, but that isn’t the case. Landowners largely know whether or not their property will be affected. The owner of the biggest parcel is CP which can afford lawyers and will ask the moon and stars anyways. There isn’t much point in second guessing VIA’s offer. I can’t imagine that bidders on the design/construction phase would be guided by that information either, assuming they intend to bid competitively.

I-have to think that the reluctance was to avoid releasing data that could be seized by either political or lobbyist opposition, especially when government is so ambivalent in the first place. The reports likely outline major risks and uncertainties. And they will likely declare the most likely and best possible performance outcomes. Giving HFR’s opponents that information so they can begin slagging HFR, before Ottawa is ready for a public debate, would be very unwise. Especially if the project has some iffy bits.

I suspect VIA is ready and willing to put its best foot forward.... but the pols sure aren’t. It’s as if they still want it to go away.

- Paul
 
The owner of the biggest parcel is CP which can afford lawyers and will ask the moon and stars anyways.

While I agree that CP will lawyer up and ask for the moon, there is no point giving them more ammunition than they need.

There is also the QGRY between Montreal and Quebec. They may not be able to afford as many lawyers.
 
While I agree that CP will lawyer up and ask for the moon, there is no point giving them more ammunition than they need.

There is also the QGRY between Montreal and Quebec. They may not be able to afford as many lawyers.

G & W ? They have $1.6B in annual revenue. And are themselves owned by someone bigger.

Anyways, that kind of information is protected in any event. I would be more concerned with things like VIA’s marketing plan, and pricing analysis. Wouldn’t Porter and Air Canada love to know all that.

- Paul
 
I would imagine any corporation involved in a business transaction with a government entity, as well as the government itself, would have confidentiality clauses in place, at least until any deal is signed.
 
I thought this was an interesting read.

 
I thought this was an interesting read.

Where is all the power going to come from with coal plants being close, building gas plants and wind power along adding power for more people to live, work, play, shop???
 
Where is all the power going to come from with coal plants being close, building gas plants and wind power along adding power for more people to live, work, play, shop???

The amount of electricity a fleet of trains uses is minuscule compared to the total electricity produced. I am not sure about other regions, but the Total Annual Ontario Electrical Energy Demand in 2019 (I'll ignore 2020 because of COVID) of 135.1 TW was 14% below the peak demand of 157 TW in 2005.
 
The amount of electricity a fleet of trains uses is minuscule compared to the total electricity produced. I am not sure about other regions, but the Total Annual Ontario Electrical Energy Demand in 2019 (I'll ignore 2020 because of COVID) of 135.1 TW was 14% below the peak demand of 157 TW in 2005.
In the US there are several large nuclear generating stations that might be closed soon (in large part because of the absence of a carbon tax). An individual unit at one of those stations could run over 100* freight locomotives at peak power output. Obviously there are transmission losses and so forth, but simply having the power is not the problem. Dispatchability and distribution are more significant issues, but that's only a huge deal for big freight trains going up steep grades. If you want to worry about the increased electrical load of decarbonization, worry about heating and hot water, not cars and trains.
 
Where is all the power going to come from with coal plants being close, building gas plants and wind power along adding power for more people to live, work, play, shop???

Where were all the drill rigs, pipelines, refineries, and gas stations when Ford started cranking out the Model T?

Also, drilling, pumping, and refining fossil fuels uses stupid amounts of electricity in and of itself, some of which becomes available to charge EVs as we shift away from burning the stuff.
 
Where were all the drill rigs, pipelines, refineries, and gas stations when Ford started cranking out the Model T?

Also, drilling, pumping, and refining fossil fuels uses stupid amounts of electricity in and of itself, some of which becomes available to charge EVs as we shift away from burning the stuff.
Not to mention there were barely any roads that were drivable or any way to pay for a road system. Or anywhere to park large numbers of cars. We invented whole new ways of taxing people and building cities. We fundamentally changed how society functions to enable mass car ownership.

This is why I laugh when people bring the challenges of electrification. Those challenges are trivial compared to what we did to popularize cars in the first place.
 

Back
Top