Finance Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2026

[Martin Imbleau]

They would be similar to what we've done in this first project—feasibility, cost, speed and ridership. Is true high-speed really required or is it something else? It's looking at different options. We call it a “multi-criteria” assessment. There's a list of various criteria that we definitely need to consider to envisage any expansion going to the southwest.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have about 45 seconds left. Can you talk a little bit about the consultation in terms of the work that's been done up to this point? You're talking about some very impressive expressions of interest, if we can put it that way, among citizens who have been engaged thus far. Who are you talking to—municipal leaders, indigenous communities and those along the affected route? It would be all of the above, I suppose.

[Martin Imbleau]

Indigenous consultation has already started. It is following a different path. This time we're doing something that we don't see very often. It's a very wide approach on consultation. We're presenting something that is very large, and we don't know everything, so we want to be out there with officials and the public in general: What should we be thinking about to update and potentially improve or change part of the project? That's what consultation is all about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Imbleau.

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

We will continue with Mr. Garon for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

Let’s start with the usual caveat. As I said to the minister, we are in favour of a train. We think it’s a great project. I am the first to suffer from the difficulties of travelling between Ottawa and the metropolitan area. It is important to repeat this, but once again, we have parliamentary work to do. In some respects, our current position is that Bill C-15 still goes quite far.

It was a somewhat general question, but I asked the minister why, if the expropriation laws prevented us from building anything large in this country, we did not simply change them so that everyone would be equal before the law.

Why are we only doing it for this project? He replied that it would be senseless. So what the minister himself is telling us—he said it here, it’s on the record—is that these legislative amendments are senseless, except for this project. What makes what is senseless elsewhere make sense for Alto?

[Martin Imbleau]

I don’t think it’s my place to answer theoretically for other projects. What is clear is that a project like this is being developed by the government itself. It is not a private project. The public interest is at the heart of the project. We are here for the public. So it’s something quite unique. It’s not a private project.

Secondly, linear projects are particularly difficult because the social and demographic reality changes with every kilometre. So, measures are needed to ensure that a certain pace of development, construction and operation is maintained. Having been involved in linear projects for 30 years, I know that without a standardized, modified process, it is difficult to complete a project of this scale within the targeted time frames.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

This implies that the minister should simply have introduced a separate bill, held hearings and amended the act in general.

There is someone here who is more knowledgeable than I am in the legal field. So please excuse my language, because I’m an economist. Generally, in life, under the current law, before Bill C-15, a person receives a notice of expropriation and, after that, is told that they are going to be expropriated. That’s how it works. I know you’re going to praise the mutual agreement, but you can spare me that, because I know that’s where we end up. At some point, the person may say that they want to be heard by a commissioner, that they are entitled to a hearing. Now, however, that part of the process is being removed from the law.

I would like to know this: If we left the law as it is, do you expect many people to exercise this right? What would your expectations be?

[Martin Imbleau]

Despite the preamble, it is certain that we will want to reach an agreement with the owners. We are talking about the next 100 years. We will not get there by rushing. We want a harmonious relationship with our neighbours.

Furthermore, what the bill does is speed up certain administrative procedures. It provides a framework for a process. The right to contest remains, modified, and the right to contest market value also remains. It is therefore an amendment that allows landowners to be satisfied and to have a defined framework.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I would just like to come back to my question, which is specific. I will say it again: Time is a rare commodity in places like this.

In the first stage, a person who wants a hearing before a commissioner will not have a hearing before a commissioner. Without Bill C-15, would you expect many people to exercise this right?

[Martin Imbleau]

The right to object remains in place. It is standardized, it is provided for in the law, and these are processes that follow—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I am talking to you about the commissioner. I am talking to you about what is in the current law. A person who has received a notice of expropriation can request a hearing before a commissioner, an environmental impact assessment, a community impact assessment, and so on.

My question to you is this: without Bill C-15, would you expect many people to exercise this right?

[Martin Imbleau]

The impact assessment has not changed. The Canadian Impact Assessment Agency has its legitimate place. We are not proposing to do away with impact assessments. On the contrary, we will subject all three segments to impact assessment without hesitation.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I would like to ask you this: Without Bill C-15, would you expect a large number of people, once they have received a notice of expropriation, to appeal to a commissioner to be heard?

[Martin Imbleau]

I think you are talking about a hypothetical situation. What I’m saying is that a structured, well-regulated process allows us to retain the right to oppose and challenge, but also to have a schedule that avoids excessive delays.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

You see, Mr. Imbleau, it’s this kind of non-answer that bothers me. Someone who receives a notice of expropriation today may want to be heard. You heard the minister, didn’t you? Ministers here are not the most sensitive people in the world. They certainly don’t have your sensitivity with regard to Mirabel, I can guarantee you that.

There is concern. Normally, these people might say to themselves, “I have a notice of expropriation, I’m going to be heard by a commissioner. It’s going to take some time. That’s part of my bargaining power. It’s something that works to my advantage, I agree.” Then these people say they are going to appeal to a commissioner. I am telling you that Bill C-15 will remove that part of the process. You call it simplification; I call it taking away someone’s right, a right in the process.

I ask you if you expect many people to request it, and you are uncomfortable answering. Perhaps the answer is yes.

[Martin Imbleau]

I think that's an assumption of my motives.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

No, the question is clear.

[Martin Imbleau]

The transparency of a process is very important to us. In the case of a high-speed rail, once the route is determined, it's clear that it will pass through those places. Giving false hope of an opposition that will take some time means that the debate is on—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

You're saying that if you aren't going to listen to them, you might as well not give them the right.

[Martin Imbleau]

The right to object remains in place. It's limited.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

It's more expensive.

[Martin Imbleau]

It's regulated, and so is the right to challenge compensation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon and Mr. Imbleau.

We will now continue with you, Mr. Lefebvre, for five minutes.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Imbleau and the other witnesses for being here in committee.

Right from the start, you talked about sound cost management. I think that's important. You also said that you need a clear framework on all aspects of the project. I'd like you to talk about the fiscal guardrails for this project. How will you be able to ensure that you maintain the guidelines for management?

[Martin Imbleau]

One of the project's very clear mandates is affordability and transparency. I would say that from a governance perspective, on a scale of one to ten, Alto is probably at seventeen, because we have an independent board of directors; we have the Auditor General; we report to Transport Canada; we systematically publish every progress report, the quarterly reports. Everything is completely, completely public. That's really the foundation of the governance that's in place.

Second, not putting forward costs or promises too early is a good way to go. Today, we still have only a working hypothesis that the project could cost between $60 billion and $90 billion. Once I have done enough work, I'll be happy to come back and tell you what the budget is for the first segment, how we intend to stick to it and what the contingencies are. That will come a little later in the process.