Madam Chair, I'm under no illusions, having just seen what members of the committee think of protecting the rights of people whose land is being expropriated. First, I'm disappointed that we no longer have an official opposition. That's concerning. The people in Mirabel and elsewhere are going to take note.
BQ‑3 is even more important. As an ordinary Canadian who is not the victim of the proposed high-speed rail network act, you are not treated like a second-class citizen when you receive notice that your land is subject to expropriation. You have the right to voice your objection should you disagree with the price you are being offered.
I will paraphrase what my Conservative colleague Jacques Gourde said in his speech in the House two weeks ago. Farmland is not like a car: if the land is divided, it can't be replaced by the insurance company like a lost or stolen car can. Jacques Gourde, the Conservative member for Lévis—Lotbinière, said that.
Accordingly, if your land is being expropriated, it makes sense that you are allowed to challenge the price you're being offered. It makes sense that a dispute resolution mechanism is available to you. Resolving a dispute may take some time, but it doesn't stop a project from being carried out when the political will is there. This is about political will.
This is what you can do, then. You can request a public hearing, and a government-appointed commissioner will hear you out. The commissioner will make their recommendation to the minister, who, with the help of public servants, will decide on the final price. If you still don't agree with the price, you can appeal the decision to the Federal Court, which is neither a simple nor clear process. It tends to be extremely costly for someone whose land is being expropriated, in terms of legal fees and court costs. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It is precisely so that doesn't happen that people are allowed to be heard in the first place.
I have a suggestion if the government wants the project to move forward quickly. By the way, the project doesn't exist. The government doesn't even know where within a 10‑kilometre range the train is going to run. If the government wants the project to move forward quickly, it should appoint commissioners.
If the high-speed rail network act becomes law, as currently proposed, here's what will happen: the Federal Court will be inundated with cases for years—similar to what happened in Quebec with the act respecting the REM—and after a few years, it will turn into a scandal because people will not have had the opportunity to be heard.
In proposing this amendment, the Bloc Québécois is simply trying to ensure that people whose land is being expropriated are entitled to have their objections heard by a commissioner within 30 days, before the minister makes their decision. This way, an agreement can be reached without people going broke in an effort to be heard by the Federal Court, people who are already dealing with their land being divided. This is land that was supposed to go to their children, land that, in many cases, they've been farming for generations.
I will say it again: This does not slow down the Alto project. Actually, it's not the Alto project. It's the Liberals' train. If Alto could, it would do things at a normal pace. This is the Prime Minister's project. This amendment does not slow down the project, because the project does not exist as of now. All this does is protect the rights of people whose land is going to be expropriated before the project even exists. What's more, it will save taxpayer money by preventing a flood of applications to the Federal Court.
Keep in mind that the segment connecting Montreal to Ottawa, including a stop in Laval, is just the first segment in a network that spans 1,000 kilometres. Imagine how many people in that 1,000‑kilometre long corridor will be applying to the Federal Court. The government can't even pay people their old age pensions. It's already put $6 billion into the Cúram software. Now we're told that the Federal Court will have to deal with cases from people who live along the 1,000‑kilometre route—unless, as Alto says, the proposed act in its current form favours negotiated agreements. The reality is that the agreements are in such violation of the rights of the people subject to expropriation and are so detrimental to their negotiating power that they will be brought to their knees and have to submit to the government, because Alto is the government. Ultimately, they are going to have to accept less than the price they would get on the market.
The way the act is written, the government is getting away with violating people's rights, with no regard for public funds or attempt at procedural fairness.
No matter what the Minister of Transport says, the act as written does not ensure that the project will move forward in a reasonable time frame or have social licence.
I urge the two parties in government, whose members are sitting next to me, to support an amendment that goes to the heart of our role as MPs, which is to keep the government in check, to prevent the government from always doing anything it wants and to represent our constituents, our farmers. Next to me is a member from Quebec whose riding is home to farm communities, so I know he is sensitive to the issue. I know there are members here who voted on the motion regarding the Mirabel expropriations, a motion that passed with unanimous support two weeks ago, and I know they are sensitive to the issue.
I urge the members here to do what the people in their ridings elected them to do. I urge them to do their job and vote in favour of this amendment.