Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments on this matter. As you know, I've been very vocal on the issue recently, especially regarding the high-speed rail network act and the amendments to the Expropriation Act.
The preamble is important. I am the member for Mirabel. Everyone knows the story of what happened in Mirabel. Two weeks ago, Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the government to never repeat what it did in 1969. It's not just farmers who are affected, but when a rail line runs through the land of a farmer, or someone else, and the process—not just the train—moves at high speed, there is a risk that people's rights will be violated.
This is for the people of my riding, the people at the Union des producteurs agricoles and Quebeckers: It's important for everyone to understand that this legislation will create two classes of citizens. On one hand, you have all Canadians, who, for the purposes of a public project, will be subject to the Expropriation Act. On the other hand, you have the Canadians and Quebeckers who will be impacted by the high-speed rail project and who will have lesser rights. Adopting this clause as is will create second-class citizens in Quebec, within the federation. That's precisely what this bill does.
As I've said time and time again—and I've made no bones about it—the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of a defining project for a modern transportation system. The issue isn't whether we are for or against high-speed rail. However, when it comes to managing a project like this one, best practices dictate that it move only as fast as engineering capacity and social licence allow. Currently, though, the project is moving as quickly as politicians and the Prime Minister can make announcements.
I firmly believe that, if the high-speed rail network act proposed in Bill C‑15 is passed as is, it will undermine the project. A project as ambitious as this one, a project that will span a thousand kilometres and take a long time to build, cannot be carried out without social licence.
I'm getting to the amendment, but my explanation will save time when we get to the following amendments.
Furthermore, the government has delegated all the dirty work to an offshoot of Via Rail that is free from the scrutiny of Parliament, the oversight of the Auditor General and the analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government told the people at Alto to go out and expropriate land as quickly as possible, washing its hands of the whole thing.
For those reasons, I am proposing a set of amendments that I'm convinced will not slow down any project carried out in a time-efficient but respectful manner.
For the first amendment, BQ‑2, I'll give you an example of what the high-speed rail network act would do.
When someone receives notice that their land is subject to expropriation, they get a knock on the door and are told that a piece of their farmland is required for the project. Obviously, the Expropriation Act seeks to prevent land speculation. The idea is to stop someone who is almost certain that their land will be expropriated from pursuing a condo development on that land and hiring an architect, to then sell to the government for an unreasonable price. That makes sense. That is the reason for preventing people from undertaking certain work on their property.
However, broadly speaking, the Expropriation Act maintains a person's right to carry out repairs. Take, for instance, a farmer with a silo. I'm really focusing on the agricultural impact. The person can undertake maintenance and repair work. Best practices dictate that, when a structure is damaged in a disaster, it can be rebuilt if the structure is necessary for the farm or farm facilities to operate.
I talked about what happened two summers ago to Éric Couvrette's farm, in Sainte‑Scholastique. The farm was destroyed in a fire, and he lost all his cows. He had to rebuild everything. Under the current wording in the legislation, he wouldn't be able to rebuild his barn if a small piece of the land was within the right of way through which the train would run.
I don't think there's any risk of land speculation if the victim of a disaster is allowed to rebuild facilities to continue operating.
The government repeats ad nauseam that the longer the project takes, the more it will cost. The same applies when you have to rebuild an agricultural facility. If it drags on for three, four, five or six years, the same thing is true. These are people facing major challenges, and they must be allowed to rebuild facilities damaged in a disaster. That's basically what we're proposing in BQ‑2.