The Strong and United rally against the Alto project near Rigaud last Saturday not only emphasized a lot of people are angry about this project, but the opposition to it has an intellectual component, that the continuing controversy surrounding the proposal carries considerable political risks.
The opposition to Alto should not be discounted or dismissed by decision makers in Ottawa or with the Alto organization headquartered in Montréal. Along many rural roads, there are signs in front of every farm and residential property. Whether a family has farmed the land for 200 years or moved to a house in the country to commute to work in the city, or retire, the opposition in the air is palpable and ubiquitous. These are people who know their land and value it tremendously, not just in the obvious financial sense, but with a deep sense of tradition and heritage.
Three speakers at Saturday’s rally demonstrated there is empirical depth to this cause. It is more than about people being angry about what could happen to their property. Professor Ian Lee said the numbers Alto is presenting for projected cost and ridership just do not make sense. He also identified faults in Alto’s projections when compared with high-speed rail systems in other countries. Erin Durant, a litigation lawyer, has compiled documents revealing details about the federal government’s request for proposal (RFP) process that raise questions about the expense and acceptability of the project. Karine Bercier, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), discussed the importance of financial and succession planning for affected agricultural landowners. The fact a professor, lawyer, and CPA have become involved in the effort to oppose Alto and expose the lack of transparency and communication by the crown corporation brings a foundation of professional, evidence-based academic research and knowledge to the cause which complements the knowledge provided by farmers and other property owners.
This project, and the controversy surrounding it, carries considerable political risks. For the governing Liberals, it could mean the loss of seats the party holds between Ottawa and Montréal. Traditionally, this has been reliable territory for the party. Although the next federal election is unlikely to be until 2029 at the earliest, memories will be long among voters. There are most likely people who oppose Alto but have usually voted Liberal. Can the governing party afford to lose their votes and potentially lose two or three seats?
There were a lot of politicians or aspiring politicians at Saturday’s rally who do not like Alto, but they do not like Canada either. There were Parti Québecois candidates in the audience and a Bloc Québecois Member of Parliament on stage. If voters elect these people because they oppose Alto, it also unfortunately helps embolden the separatist cause in Québec and Ottawa.
Opposition to Alto emerged initially because people simply do not want the project. The Alto crown corporation only emboldened the opposition by communicating badly and lacking transparency. The result has been legitimate anger among rural property owners and high-risk political situations.
The government and the Alto organization need to seriously consider canceling the proposed version of the Alto project due to its unpopularity. They also need to completely change their approach to public relations about the issue.
