Evidence of meeting #27 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Very quickly, Madam Chair, I want to point out that this train project is a Canadian train project, which enjoys a very high level of support from Canadians, both in Quebec and in Ontario.
I don't need to go any further than that.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Chair, I'd like to make it clear that what I'm going to say is related to the amendments.
I don't know if the government realizes that we're trying to help it.
We have a Prime Minister who is hardly ever in Canada. People who are not on the ground want this to move quickly. They want it to be a weapon of mass construction, as the president of Alto himself said. They want to build, build, build. We get it. This is an economic stimulus project, and that's great. However, when you're going through people's backyards, if you don't do it in a socially acceptable and respectful way, the project will not go as fast as you want.
As I told you, Highway 13, Highway 50 and the Enbridge pipeline went through our area, and people didn't react this way because they were properly consulted.
The minister tells us that nothing is being done in Canada anymore, in the provinces or even at the federal level. After all, a pipeline is not under provincial jurisdiction. He says that nothing ever gets done. He points to the Mégantic bypass as an example, but that is a unique case. Well, I have to tell you that's not true.
The government doesn't understand that, precisely because its project has buy-in, because we need foundational transportation projects and because we have to join the 21st century, we have to work as though it's the 21st century. That's what my colleague, Mr. Leitão, doesn't understand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
I think the debate on that is over.
I must inform the committee that, since the purpose of amendment BQ‑3 was to make section 9 of the Expropriation Act applicable and BQ‑4 refers to that section, adopting BQ‑4 could be in conflict because BQ‑3 was rejected.
Shall BQ‑4 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm an optimistic man, so I still have hope. You can fail to get an amendment passed four times, which is deplorable, but you can succeed the fifth time.
This time, we're talking about expropriation notices sent out by email. Bill C‑15 will allow the Alto arm of the Liberal government to send expropriation notices to people by email.
I'll just put things in perspective. It's 2026, and people don't always communicate by registered mail or telegrams anymore. We understand that some people want to be contacted by email. We also understand that the means of communication used to send notices of expropriation are set out in the act. We understand that this aspect of the act needs to be modernized, and we're not opposed to that, except that, as the bill is currently worded, Alto is allowed to use email as the default means of communication.
We know that people are afraid of fraud these days. They sometimes wonder if the emails they receive from their bank are authentic or fraudulent. The government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, among others, are currently conducting fraudulent email awareness campaigns. Some people don't feel they can trust emails, even those that are official communications. However, as it is currently worded, the bill gives Alto the right to communicate with people by email.
When the CEO of Alto, Mr. Imbleau, appeared before the committee, he told us that, if someone preferred to be contacted by registered mail, say, it could take a few more days, but his company would do it, because they want people to feel comfortable.
That's why I drafted an amendment that is consistent with what Mr. Imbleau asked for. If we were to name this amendment, we would name it after the CEO. It simply states that, when a notice is so important and life-changing, it must be sent via traditional and verifiable methods, such as registered mail, by default. If a person wants to be contacted by email, they may request that, and the default means of communication would then be changed. That would give Alto all the freedom it needs to do exactly what its CEO told us he would do.
I can't even imagine this amendment not being passed unanimously. This is what the CEO of Alto asked us to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Okay.
I don't see any other speakers, so we'll go to a vote on BQ‑5. It will be a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We will go to a recorded division.
(Clause 191 negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
(Clause 192 negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Clause 192 is defeated.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
There seems to be some confusion that I think can be best taken up if we suspend for a few minutes, if that's okay.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary East, AB
Chair, I seek unanimous consent to go back to clauses 191 and 192.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
(Clause 193 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 1)
(Clause 194 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 1)
(On clause 195)
We're moving on to division 2, “Canada Post Corporation Act”.
Shall clause 195 carry?
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would once again ask my colleagues for the opportunity to speak briefly to urge committee members to vote against this.