Debates of Nov. 25th, 2004

Supply

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, following his very eloquent speech that reminds me the time, several years ago, when he was working in a Montreal radio station. However, it was a little demagogic.

The motion before us today only talks about selling back 11,000 acres of land to farmers. The Minister of Transport says there is a lease with ADM and so on. We only want one thing. We have nothing against the expansion or the work that will be done at Mirabel. Indeed, the Bloc has always agreed and has always said that there was one too many airports. We cannot rewrite history, despite the Minister of Transport's intentions.

However, what we want is the selling back of 11,000 acres of land that are not being used and will not be used. There is enough space now for all the nice projects that the Minister of Transport could develop at Mirabel.

We believe that it is impossible for farmers, even though they have a lease—I think the minister will be able to recognize this—to mortgage, lease, give and transfer this land to their own children, since they are bound by a lease.

The question that I ask the minister is this. Has the government specific plans for these 11,000 acres of land that it could give back to farmers?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his question.

We do not want to rewrite history; we want to write a new chapter of the history of Mirabel, a happy chapter, a chapter of development and of job creation, a chapter of economic wealth.

Of course, ADM made decisions. We know that we cannot rewrite the lease either. I think that the signature of a government minister has legal value. I know full well that the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher would not like to embark on something that would give rise to endless lawsuits. I know that if the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue had in his riding a gem like Mirabel, he would fight tirelessly to ensure that nobody took away the smallest piece of it. I am convinced of that, since I know him well.

It is for this reason that I find it difficult to understand why the current member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel does not voice his outrage at seeing his riding lose en extraordinary tool of development.

We do not intend to rewrite history. We acknowledge the vicissitudes of history. However, as opposed to the opposition members, we have no intention of either giving up or halting the development of Mirabel. In its master plan, ADM, the legally responsible institution, has declared itself prepared to extend those 131 leases until 2023. This is quite a long period, that can yield quite a few crops indeed.

I want to reassure the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue that we will not jeopardize the big plans we have for Mirabel. On the contrary, we will put all our energy into them.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting exchange between the leader of the official opposition and the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport, quite correctly, pointed out that he was a member and not a minister in the Trudeau government. He was a minister in the government of Mr. Turner.

Why does the Minister of Transport feel that he is under an obligation to defend the Trudeau legacy? He was not a minister during that period of time. He knows in his heart that a terrible mistake was made in the late sixties and the early seventies when 10,000 people were dispossessed of their property. He was not a minister in that government so what is in it for him? He does not have to answer for them. We heard it from him and we heard it from the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

Those members cannot divorce themselves from the mistakes of the past but they know in their hearts that those mistakes were made, which is why they do not want to talk about anything else. If we were to check the record of those members we would see that over the years they have talked about everything except the 10,000 people who lost their land, and they still do not want to talk about that today. They want to talk about everything else under the sun except those human tragedies.

I would like to hear the member address that. I have not heard him yet but I have heard him talk about everything else. He told us to talk to the cargo handlers and the companies who want to use Mirabel. I say that he should talk to the farmers who lost their land. What are they going to do about them? That is what the minister should be talking about.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the member is coming from. We believe in the future of Mirabel. We know he does not. We believe there is a development potential there for cargo. We believe that as an industrial site Mirabel is offering a great perspective.

We know there are four groups right now that want to buy or rent the facilities at Mirabel, four groups that have until March 31 to complete their proposals.

We have a better project than that. Everyone in the House knows that Bombardier is looking at a series C project. Just the assembly plant would mean 2,500 jobs. We believe Mirabel has a great potential for that. If we want to build airplanes we have to test those airplanes and the best way to do that is at an airport, which is what Mirabel offers. It runs 24 hours a day and is a great place.

Obviously we would have liked to have passengers there, but it is not diverse enough, perhaps because some of the flights moved somewhere else. However at the end of the day we do not want to reduce the potential of Mirabel.

The Tory government signed a 60-year lease with a non-profit corporation and we want those Tories to respect the signatures. Otherwise the government will be drawn into a legal battle that will be a lawyer's dream but very costly for taxpayers.

We do not want to reduce the potential of Mirabel. We believe in the future of Mirabel and we will do everything to develop the industrial site and the cargo potential of Mirabel.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister and I must say that I have rarely heard more hyperbole and more excessive rhetoric in this chamber on any occasion. I am tempted to say that he should just take a psychological Valium so we can get on with having a sensible discussion, but I am not sure if that is parliamentary.

I have a question arising out of the minister's insistence that in this debate he is hearing a lot of inconsistency and contradictions. Applying that test to the minister's own excessive rhetoric, I have two very specific questions.

I am quite sympathetic to the argument that we need to have a view to the future of the use of that Mirabel land. However, how is it not contradictory in this instance to be rejecting a proposal that 6,000 acres remain for the future use of Mirabel, when we know that the Toronto airport has 4,200 acres, the Ottawa airport has 4,500 acres, Heathrow airport, keeping in mind the size of Heathrow, has 2,700 acres, and Los Angeles airport has 3,500 acres? How is 6,000 acres for the future of Mirabel not sufficient?

In terms of contradictions, I am sure the minister knows that the government is about to eliminate over 500 units of family housing in the Halifax regional municipality. Housing that was in use by DND for military families will be eliminated from use. How is it consistent to argue that we should have a view to the use of land owned by government for future needs when there is a desperate need for affordable housing in my riding and in Nova Scotia, in fact all over this country, and the government is prepared to take those right out of public use?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that the hon. member chose the wrong examples. I happen to get all the complaints of citizens from Toronto. They do not believe the airport site is big enough. They get the noise and they get all kinds of problems because the airport does not have enough space. Frankly, the member has really taken the worst example.

The member wants to talk about Los Angeles. The same thing happens in Los Angeles. The population is right next to the airport and the airfield is much too small. They have all kinds of complaints.

I have respect for people, which is why we want the airport to work 24 hours a day without causing trouble or making any noise for anyone. We want people to sleep well at night. The airport can work 24 hours a day, the planes can work 24 hours a day and the cargo can come in a full 24 hours a day, which is why we need the space.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, the Bloc Québécois transport critic, for allowing me to be the first speaker on this important issue brought forward by the Conservative Party, namely the return of 11,000 acres of expropriated land to Mirabel farmers.

I had a speech planned, but instead I must answer the allegations made by the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether I should laugh or cry. After all, he is the Minister of Transport for Quebec as well as Canada. Either he does not know what he is talking about or he is a true demagogue. He is pitting the file of the land to be returned to Mirabel farmers against the Bombardier file. He is stooping as low as his political masters of the time.

Currently, 6,000 acres within the Mirabel fence have been put up for tender. The 11,000 acres were not even included in the ADM call to tender. It just happens that I was shown the ADM call to tender. I set up a regional committee, which ordered ADM, by registered mail, to appear so the committee could find out what it intended to do and what kind of call to tender it had put out. Luckily for us, the call to tender was tabled. It includes the terminal, the hotel, the administrative buildings and the warehouses located on the 6,000 acres, which is nothing like what we have been told. The ADM call to tender does not include the 11,000 acres outside the fence. Either the minister is a real demagogue or he does know what he is talking about.

You will reach your own conclusion, Madam Speaker. But I do not want to somehow pit the return of the land against Bombardier and the development of the industrial site within the 6,000 acres. It never was the intention of the Bloc Québécois to do such a thing.

I am surprised that the Minister of Transport, who is supposed to know his portfolio, would come here and tell the House, more or less, that there will be bids, but no one knows anything about these four proposals. It is simple. We do not need to know more about them because they are not related to the 11,000 acres that do not form part of the 6,000 acres available for development and therefore covered in the invitation to tender.

So, once again, I do not know why we are having this debate today. Perhaps it is because the Minister of Transport is trying to make us understand that he will not be giving Bombardier what it is asking for. Perhaps he is trying to find a way out, saying, “Look, the interested parties and the Conservatives want to return 11,000 acres of farmland and Bombardier will not get any help.” Perhaps that is what this minister, this demagogue, is trying to do.

However, we have our eyes open and we have figured out what the minister is trying to do. We are going to defend Bombardier and the aerospace industry to our last drop of blood. And we will defend the farmers of Mirabel as well, because we defend the interests of Quebec.

I happily return to my speech now. The story of Mirabel began in 1967. The Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson finally understood that Dorval could no longer function as an international airport. Let us remember that in 1967 the only place in Canada that international flights could land was Montreal. Things have changed a great deal since then.

Let us also remember that it was the Department of Transport of Canada that opened the doors for more international flights to land in Canada, either in Montreal or Toronto. At the time, all international flights were into and out of Montreal. It was the Liberals who decided to give more and more international flights to Toronto. Then the Conservatives continued this policy. In that way, eventually, Montreal became a less important hub than Toronto.

The Liberal Party in 1967 decided that Dorval was too small for future development and obviously, in an urban area with many people around it, that was a wise decision. In my opinion, if ADM had decided to make the opposite decision, to keep Mirabel open while closing Dorval to passenger flights, today they would be hailed as geniuses, especially since September 11, 2001. But that is not what happened since, once again, the Liberals trusted in ADM. I will get back to ADM later.

However, we must remember that Mr. Pearson commissioned the study in 1967. On March 27, 1969, a plan is tabled to expropriate close to 100,000 acres of farmland. Since this acreage was in the middle of farmland, we can see what Mirabel has now become: an airport that is not served by highway 13, highway 50, or by a high speed train. When it was decided to build the airport in the middle of that farmland, highways 13 and 50, and a high speed train, were supposed to be built. It is the Liberals who, after thinking it over between 1969 and 1975, decided, when the airport was inaugurated, not to provide transportation services to Mirabel. This was a political decision and afterwards it was easy to defend the relevancy of Dorval. I will refrain from talking about the Liberal Party establishment in Montreal's West Island, but the fact is that there is some truth to this.

So, the project involved 100,000 acres of farmland and a readjusting of the boundaries of a number of municipalities, namely Saint-Canut, Saint-Antoine, Saint-Jérôme, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Saint-Janvier, Sainte-Monique, Saint-Augustin and Sainte-Scholastique. As we know, this area is now called Mirabel. The area was larger than the City of Laval, 10 times greater than the then world's largest airport and 27 times larger than the Dorval Airport. Over 3,000 owners were affected. We know the whole saga that was triggered by this decision.

In 1975, when the airport was inaugurated by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau called it the project of the century. However, highways 13 and 50 did not go to the airport and there was no high speed train connection, even though rails are installed in the basement. Indeed, let us not forget that rails were installed in the basement of the air terminal. This was an objective set by Mr. Pearson but, for some reason, the Trudeau government abandoned the idea. I should also point out that the current Minister of Transport was part of the Trudeau government.

There is something here that should be mentioned. When Mirabel opened in 1975, the situation was simple: Mirabel handled all international and chartered flights, while Dorval was used for domestic flights. A decision was to be made later to transfer all domestic flights to Mirabel. In 1982, a cabinet meeting was held in a Montreal hotel and the manager of the two airports was in attendance. At the time, it was Transport Canada that managed the airports. The Minister of Transport then announced that he would not transfer all passenger flights from Dorval to Mirabel. Authorities had already begun to give many international flights to Toronto and a decision was made to protect Dorval. This is what led to the current situation, that is the closing, on October 31, 2004, of the whole airport to passenger flights.

The minister boasts of the work of ADM. It is true that ADM was created by the Conservatives in 1992. I am not sure that they are proud of it today, since ADM is the mother of all airport authorities in Canada. Considering the waste of money that has been characteristic of these authorities in many airports across the country, I would say that, at the very least, the situation would call for a thorough review by the Auditor General of their records. By the way, these are non-profit agencies staffed by direct government appointments. However, they are outside the scrutiny of this Parliament and they can establish their own rates independently, given the fact that they are empowered to collect airport improvement fees. This power gives them their own revenues. Therefore, they are given a credit rating by the banks.

Since I have worked at the municipal level, I can say that cities, by comparison, must submit borrowing by-laws for review by Quebec's Ministère des Affaires municipales. However, in this particular instance, when airport authorities wish to borrow money, they are totally independent and they do not even need to obtain federal government approval. That system was established by the Conservatives and, since then, has been kept in place by the Liberals. The Liberals are simply washing their hands of it and actually enjoy ADM's poor management decisions.

Such is reality. We trust ADM. It is an independent corporation. My opponent, in the middle of the election campaign, even dared to say it is a private corporation. I do not know where he got his information. While it is true that ADM is a non-profit and independent organization which operates in its own way, it is also true that it has its own way of wasting money. In our opinion, there is shameless waste in the Mirabel file.

The fate of the farmers is left in the hands of ADM by this minister of Transport. ADM is an independent organization. Its purpose is not to manage agricultural lands. In the worst case scenario, it is a problem for it. It is simply trying to manage airport equipment. It is true that this responsibility was entrusted to ADM through a lease signed by the Conservatives. I have a copy of this 374-page document here. I am a lawyer by profession, therefore, I have examined this lease and I can say that the Minister of Transport can, if he wishes so, take management of the Mirabel operations from among ADM's responsibilities.

The minister would have so many reasons to do so. I will give you an example. I have taken an excerpt from the lease to make sure my stand is well understood.

I will quote article 8, at page 101, which covers the use of the rented premises:

The tenant shall use the rented premises for the purposes of a major international airport and, without prejudice to paragraph 7.02.09, for purposes that are not incompatible with the management, the operation and the maintenance of the airport. The tenant shall ensure that all occupants and assignees use the rented premises for purposes that are not incompatible with the management, the operation and the maintenance of the airport. In addition, the tenant undertakes not use or allow others to use, in whole or in part, the rented premises for any commercial activity for purposes other than those pertaining to a major international airport [...] and, in all cases, the whole shall be in accordance with this lease and with the approved land-use plan.

Thus, it must be understood that, when the lease was signed, there was a land-use plan. This is the second time it has been altered under Liberal rule. ADM is allowed to do things other than those set out in the original lease.

I know that, at the conclusion of the bidding process, you will need to make further changes. Indeed, we do not know what will be in there, but I would tell you that the first role of this airport is the operation of a major international airport. This is why you expropriated 100,000 acres of land and displaced 3,000 families. Not to build a shopping centre.

Of course, this is the whole point and today, farmers are entitled to seek the return of those 11,000 acres. ADM has, in fact, decided not to operate a major international airport, and above all not on these 11,000 acres.. In addition, it has decided to use the bidding process, in relation to everything, except the operation of a passenger airport is permitted. This is what is found in the call for tender.

I am asking the minister to read that document. The Montreal Airport is telling would-be bidders that they can operate everything, except a passenger airport. Is that what you call operating a major international airport? Is that the point of view of the minister? I have a problem with that. That is why, at the outset, I did not know whether I had to laugh or whether I had to cry.

The minister decided to collaborate with people who have no respect or concern for the farmers' interests. ADM has only one concern right now and that is to try to make Mirabel profitable because their rating has just gone down. Their credit rating has been going down for three years now. Such is the reality.

They need money at all cost. They do not want to lose the farmers' leases, because they get to keep that income. If ever the federal government decided to sell the land, it would keep them because the money goes to the owners, not the tenants. Thus, ADM would not get anything.

ADM has no incentive to do business with the farmers. All they will try to do is increase the rent. Next they will try to get the municipal assessment lowered for the entire airport complex, because it is costing them too much in taxes and they need to make up ground for the mistakes they have made. Such is the reality.

In order to be able to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval, they paid, repaid and paid some more for companies to go to Dorval. This created a hole in ADM's finances, which they are trying to fill any way they can with help from the minister. To get us to forget about the 11,000 acres of land and the farmers, the minister, today in this House, is suggesting that a vote in favour of this motion is a vote against Bombardier and all aerospace development in Quebec.

At first I wondered if he said this because he truly did not understand his portfolio or if he is just a demagogue. I think he is a demagogue who takes after Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It suits him, especially when we know what happened, when we know that it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who opened Mirabel. And this government had the nerve to name Dorval airport after him. How nice.

This would not be their first mistake or insult to Quebeckers, far from it. The fact remains that there are still farmers in Mirabel who are working hard to earn a living. They have problems too.

As you know, the mad cow crisis is causing problems for farmers in all sectors. The farmers have to rent these 11,000 acres. And renting is not like owning. You cannot change the layout, you do not have the same relations with bankers. This is what Mirabel farmers have to live with. They have never stopped to develop this land, these 11,000 acres. But there are still 6,000 acres that could be used by Bombardier and all the minister's great projects.

I will be glad to rise in the House when he tables his policy on aerospace and helps the whole industry. Of course, Bombardier is to be found in Mirabel, so are Bell Helicopter and a host of parts makers. It is a great sector.

Indeed, we could lose it if the minister does not hurry. I hope he will not say today that we will lose it because of the return of 11,000 acres of land not used by ADM. They are not part of the call for tenders made to different future partners. This was not the object of the operation. Such is the reality.

What we want to do today is return the 11,000 acres of land to the farmers, who have lived through human drama. I thanked the leader of the Conservative Party for mentioning the book that was written about this. Families were decimated. Some people are still having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they were expropriated.

I cannot foresee the day when the Liberal government, which started off with 100,000 acres and ended up with 17,000 acres and which now uses only approximately 3,500 of them, will be able to use all the 17,000 acres. I do not want to indulge in demagoguery, but I do not believe we will see it during the minister's life.

Once again, if the situation ever gets really good, the land required can be expropriated a second time. It is that simple. The minister can take umbrage if he wishes to but, in fact, the powers of governments at all levels, be it local, provincial or federal, are in keeping with needs.

The error was to expropriate too much land. If again, 50 or 100 years down the road, that land is needed again, people will understand. However, I am convinced that this will not happen in my lifetime and I know for a fact that I am younger than the minister.

Once again, I was happy to speak today. The Bloc Québecois will also be happy to vote this afternoon in the Standing Committee on Transport. My colleague from Longueil—Pierre-Boucher tabled a learned motion,which will be voted on today by the Committee. The motion put forward in this House will be voted on next week. It is clear that the Bloc Québécois will support it, as you have understood, of course.

We only wish that past mistakes will never be repeated. What we have now is a cacophony of mistakes made by the Liberals. The tragedy of this situation is that the Minister of Transport tried once more today to justify the mistake in order to save Bombardier. After saving Bombardier, he will find some new excuse to try to save yet another party.

None of this is easy to hear, particularly when we have to cope with the people who have had to suffer all this upheaval. He, of course, is far removed from all that. As they say, out of sight, out of mind. So what may happen to the farmers of Mirabel is of no importance to the minister. That is his choice. but there are others in this place who have made the decision to no longer put up with these mistakes made by the federal government and to take steps to correct them.

We are focussing all our political know-how on doing so. The Bloc Québécois, of course, but also the Conservatives, and I hope we will see the NDP supporting this motion as well. Politicians have to know how to make use of this tool, the House of Commons. The people expropriated and the farmers of Mirabel are in luck to have a minority government at present, as I hope it will serve their cause well.

Once again, I hope I will manage to convince the minister, at least partially, of at least one thing. He must stop pitting the farmers' case against that of Bombardier. There is really no connection between the two.

On behalf of the residents of Mirabel, of the farm families of Mirabel, I would ask the minister to show a little compassion. There is still time to show a bit of respect and compassion. I would ask him to vote in favour of this motion in the House of Commons. That is what we in the Bloc Québécois will be doing , and no doubt the Conservatives as well, this being their motion. I hope the NDP will also be voting in favour of this motion, so that this injustice, this great injustice, will be remedied. Let us never forget that 3,000 families were uprooted, the greatest displacement of a population within Canada since the deportation of the Acadians.

I think it is time this situation came to end and the 11,000 acres returned to their owners. That will still leave 6,000 acres within the perimeter of development. That is, as we will hear, twice the area of Dorval. In my opinion, that is ample for anything the Transport minister may want to do.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his speech. However, his conclusion frightens me. The Bloc Québécois position is that we should give back the land to the farmers, and if we need it one day, we can simply expropriate again. I heard him say that three times.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher never would have said such a thing. I cannot believe what I am hearing. I know that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is a lawyer and that they love expropriations, but come on!

What this all boils down to is that they do not have much ambition for Mirabel, but if by chance the government and ADM managed to fully develop it, they would simply expropriate again. No big deal.

They were lamenting the fate of the expropriated. Would others be any less sad? Is the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel trying to tell us that they will try to buy back one group and return for the others later? That is a strange way to look at the situation.

I assume he let his emotions get the better of him, or maybe it was a holdover from his former career, but this cannot be the official stance of the Bloc Québécois. Will the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel stand up and say that this is the Bloc's official position and that if we give the land back and later find out that there is a good development opportunity in Mirabel, we will expropriate again? Is that correct?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister is his same old self. I would like him to understand that we have 17,000 acres of land on our hands, 11,000 thousand of which we will not use, and he knows that. Six thousand acres are being developed and about 3,500 acres are already developed. There are 2,500 acres left, and that is plenty for his and ADM's capabilities.

The problem is the minister wants to keep this land for eternity. I will not be here for eternity. If, one day, they need part of eternity, other people will be able to make the proper decisions.

Right now, with everything that is going on, and given all the facts at hand, after everything that happened in the past, and for the simple reason that this land is being used by farmers who earn a living from it, it would be about time to hand them back the land they have been taking care of for decades. I hope this will be done with the agreement of all members.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the debate, and in particular listening to the Minister of Transport, I am hearing what I have heard for 11 years in the House.

Over and over the Liberal government talks about what it believes in, what it wants, how it sees things, and how it believes this country should operate. However, one thing is missing, and particularly on this issue. He has been up talking about “we, we, we”. He has never responded to my hon. colleague from Niagara Falls, the transport critic for our party, who asked him specifically to forget about what the government's false vision might be on this issue, but rather to talk about the people whose lives it has affected in such a terrible way.

The government plundered the land from the people, the farmers, who had visions. We are talking about the people of Canada incidentally, the farmers of that land who had visions of a future for them and their families that would span decades and perhaps centuries of farming in that particular area.

The land was ripped from their grasp, ripped out of their dreams, for what became probably the biggest white elephant investment that a Liberal government ever made in the history of the years during which it was in charge of the country.

I want to ask the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel a question. Is this not just typical of the way that Liberal government members have acted for so many years while in power? It has been all about them, what they feel, and what they say is best for the country, not about what is best for the people of this country. Is this not a perfect example of the--

[An hon. member]

Arrogance?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

The arrogance, yes. It is the arrogance and dictatorial way that they have governed this country for years. Is this not just another example? It is all about them and not about the people of the riding.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He is right. It is as if there is no salvation outside the Liberal Party. That is the position of the transport minister and of all the Liberals. The fact is they cannot recognize past errors. That is why so many people do not trust politicians anymore.

It is hard to stand here, in 2004, and listen to the transport minister when he tries to convince us he did not make a mistake. It is not the Liberals who gave back part of the land. If they had remained the government, they would have kept those 80,000 acres. They would never admit they made a mistake. Today, we would not be talking about 17,000 acres, but 100,000, if the Liberals had been in power.

My hon. colleague got the picture. That is why I am proud of the Conservative Party. I hope that the NDP will support us in this fight, to ensure that the people of Quebec and Canada can correct this mistake and that we can be magnanimous and say, “We have made a mistake. Here, we are giving you your land back”. That is basically what all opposition parties in this House are doing, trying to say, “They made a mistake. Let us correct it”. In my opinion, that is the way to go.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to even comprehend the situation here. We have the Minister of Transport debating the Bloc, which he helped found. He has switched back and forth a number of times. Maybe we will see something happen again, but it shows how unusual the situation has become here.

In terms of duplicity and of having one standard and changing to another, the Minister of Transport refused to answer the question put by the member for Halifax about the fact that the government is disposing of public housing for our defence. At the same time, the Minister of Public Works is looking at disposing our public buildings and institutions, yet at the same time he wants to protect that footprint.

I would like to ask the hon. member about that duplicity. It is an important part of this debate. On the one hand, the government thinks that it should actually preserve this footprint that has been expropriated from people, and at the same time, it is not willing to commit to a significant need of assuring that our employees have places to work, have a good environment, and also have affordable housing. So there is a demand, and the government wants to get rid of those facilities. Where there is not, it wants to maintain them. I find that hypocritical.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his question. Of course, he understood perfectly. The Liberal federal government engages in uncontrolled development and makes mistakes it will not admit to making.

As I said earlier, the worst thing a politician can do is keep apologizing, giving reasons and making excuses, as the minister did today, talking about the 11,000 acres of land that is not being used by Bombardier and never will, and so on.

He is trying to justify the Liberal mentality and philosophy, and this is painful to hear in this House. There are residents and farmers of Mirabel watching—greetings to them, by the way—who will find it particularly painful to see that they are being put in context.

It is not a pleasant situation when a minister tells you, “If you maintain your position, if you do not back off and stop hassling us about the 11,000 acres we are not using, you may jeopardize the jobs at Bombardier”. That is not pleasant for a community. Yet that is what the minister did today, using all sorts of arguments in an attempt to discourage people from voting against a mistake made by the Liberal Party.

Incidentally, the minister was there in 1982. Personally, I like to think that one of his reasons for switching to the Bloc Québécois was precisely in reaction against the mistake made in Mirabel. Today, however, I am realizing that this is not what happened.

So, I commend the hon. members from the NDP and hope that they will support the motion.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to present the financial costs that have been incurred at Mirabel Airport and then I will give a bit of a history, so that those of us in the House will understand some of the dynamics as well as all Canadians.

It is hard, on an issue such as this, for all Canadians to see the benefit of spending a day discussing it or to see the big issue, but I think once they hear the financial costs and the history of Mirabel, it will hit home to each and every Canadian.

Originally, Mirabel was estimated to cost $425 million when planning began in the late 1960s. That money was spent in the first of several planned phases of the installation and by the time it opened for business, the projected price tag was $1.5 billion. Five years later the airport was losing money at the rate of more than $20 million a year and has been a loser ever since.

Montreal Mirabel International Airport is now used exclusively for cargo flights, not for passenger flights. The passenger flights ended October 31, 2004. We can give some credit to the government, which made a decision to close it to passenger flights, and we will not see the losses of $20 million a year. However, it does open up another situation, which I will get into after I give a bit more history on Mirabel.

It was constructed as part of a major project by the Canadian federal government under Pierre Trudeau for Montreal, originally to replace Dorval. It was not to be a part of Dorval or to work alongside Dorval, but to replace Dorval. From the start Mirabel was controversial. In order to build the airport, the government expropriated 100,000 acres of land. That, in itself, was absolutely scandalous. That was from about 3,000 property owners. Can hon. members imagine, 3,000 property owners just having their land taken away from them to put in place another airport? It gets better.

It was a huge expense and during the process, and this will shock all hon. members in the House and all Canadians, there were allegations of corruption and patronage. There is a shock. The airport was opened in 1975 with great fanfare. Montreal's Olympic Games were coming, and the international airport was deemed crucial to the games' success and the city's future as an international destination.

Supporters predicted that Mirabel would become a gateway to the world, luring 60 million passengers annually by 2010. It never fulfilled that promise. At its peak it drew no more than three million passengers. Three million passengers for 100,000 acres of expropriated land. Foreign media passengers at the airport have been calling it a white elephant ever since. There is no question that Mirabel, as a major passenger airport, never, ever followed-through.

The airport's location near the community of Mirabel was also a big mistake. It was the result of a fundamentally flawed compromise between the federal government and the Quebec government that satisfied no one in the end. The federal government had originally intended the new facility to be the international airport for the capital region, plus Transport Canada envisioned it being built to the west of Montreal. The province, on the other hand, was looking to lure Quebec City travellers to the airport and wanted it built to the east, near Drummondville, almost halfway between the two cities. It was a compromise that did not work for anybody. It had a couple of strikes against it right from the beginning, namely, to split flights between Mirabel and Trudeau, formerly Dorval, and the failure to build the necessary road and rail links from Mirabel to Montreal.

This has not been an experiment that jeopardized the future of 3,000 families that worked. It did not happen. It looks like it was someone's idea to do this and to heck with how it affected anybody. Right from the get go it was not done in a proper manner.

Toronto's Pearson International quickly picked up steam in the seventies, taking flights away from Mirabel. We had a situation where poor government planning, wastage of dollars time and time again, affected the lives of numerous people whose land was taken.

It was anticipated that a new airport away from the city but with reliable passenger rail links, again where the government has failed and continues to fail, would be successful. However, debates between levels of government moved the site further from the city than reasonably reachable and the only passenger links are by a long road. From day one, it was not a good move.

Dorval was flooded at the time due to too many jets using Dorval as a stopover to refuel. However, the advent of long range aircraft caused airplanes to stop landing to refuel there and as a result Dorval was no longer overcrowded. To this date there is not a major issue with Dorval.

What we are talking about today is not 100,000 acres. In 1985-86 the government returned 80,000 acres of that land, leaving about 17,000 acres. Someone's estimates were way off right from the get go. Of that 17,000 acres, farmers want 11,000 acres, leaving 6,000 acres for use by Mirabel, which is only used now for cargo services and charter services at some point. When the government returned the land in 1985-86, it made $81 million dollars. The land was expropriated, sold back and that is where it stands.

Today we have an opportunity for the government to right a wrong that took place. I think there are only 40 some farmers in this case now and that should seem like no big deal. The reality is we are dealing with a situation that affected a number of farmers initially. Those same family members are involved in this process. As someone from outside of Quebec and outside of the area, it looks to me as though the land was falsely expropriated. The government never needed that amount of land. At this point in time, when that land is definitely not being used, there is no feasible reason why it should not be returned.

The suggestion that some day down the road it might be needed, the 6,000 acres would still be ample. My colleague from Halifax mentioned what was presently being used for the Toronto airport, 4,200 acres; Ottawa, 4,500 acres; Heathrow, 2,700 acres; and Los Angeles, 3,500 acres. How can the government suggest that somehow more than 6,000 acres will be needed at Mirabel when we still have Trudeau airport? It is not acceptable.

It leads me to question the government's trusteeship in this case. It leads me to question what its intentions are, whether there is an intention there. We have seen many instances where it parcelled off that land to some private company, some friends of the Liberals, just as there were allegations of patronage initially. There is that risk, in spite of everything we dealt with in the last two years in the House related to the government's feeding taxpayer dollars to Liberal friendly people. It is not right.

All Canadians should stand up in support of those 40 some farmers in Mirabel and say to the Liberals that they will not keep their land and use it for their own selfish purposes. The right thing to do is to return the land to those farmers if it is not needed for a passenger airport.

The transport minister has mentioned that the government has an agreement with the airport authorities. He says that the government cannot break that agreement with the airport authorities. The government is the master and the initiator of those airport authorities. The government appoints those individuals to airport authorities.

There have been questions in a number of instances throughout Canada as to who may be on those airport authorities. I say may because I think some who are on those authorities throughout Canada are very good individuals who work for the benefit of the community. However, there have been questions with regard to the airport authority in Montreal, that there was some Liberal patronage.

The government is the instigator of the airport authorities. The government can change what took place with the contract. The contract was for an airport authority to operate the airport, the intent being for passenger service. Things have changed and passenger service is no longer there. To suggest that the government cannot change the deal with the airport authority or the airport authority cannot renegotiate and give that money back to the farmers is just not an acceptable reason.

The Transport minister might think he will be tied up in court with the airport authorities. As a Parliament, we are the master of the legislation that put those airport authorities into existence. Now we are in a minority Parliament and perhaps we need to take the government to task about changing that right here and now, for all the airport authorities, so we do not have that kind of a situation.

Perhaps the minister does not think the government can have control of the airport authorities to ensure that they provide the best service to Canadians as far as passenger service and act responsibly in that. If the Parliament of Canada says that the responsible thing to do is return that 11,000 acres, then something is amok within the Liberal cabinet and it needs to change. It is absolutely not acceptable.

I say to my colleagues from the Bloc, we intend to support this motion. I say it to the Bloc because its members have been very active in supporting the farmers in Mirabel. I say to the Conservatives, who brought the motion forward today, we will be supporting it for all the right reasons.

Land was expropriated unjustly in my view. It is presently being kept falsely. I do not believe for one second that the Liberal government's intentions are noble in this instance. I think there is an underlying plan here. I am not willing to see even 43 families, or 43 farmers or 43 individuals suffer unjustly because of false actions of the Liberal government.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague spoke about our farm families. Does she believe, as I do, that our agricultural communities across Canada have been neglected badly by the Liberal government? Does she agree that it is just once again another step in Canada's roll down the slippery slope of being unable to provide good quality food, which we do at this time, for our citizens? If the Liberal government keeps neglecting agriculture and our farm families the way it is, will this lead to further problems in our food industry?

[An hon. member]

Where is the relevance?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is asking where is the relevance. I will tell him where it is. The relevance is falsely expropriating 100,000 acres of farmland and then not putting in place the airport that it said it would. The relevance is having 17,000 acres of farmland, when the government probably only needs 6,000 acres of it. The relevance is not giving that land back to the farmers. It is good, arable farmland which they have been leasing and farming all these years. It has not been used for what the government expropriated it. That is relevance. It is a matter of the government not doing what it should be doing for the priorities of Canada. It is just not acceptable to do that.

When we look at this, what we have is the feudal landlord. It was the farmers' land, the government took it away and then leased it back to them. There is no reason why that land should not be returned. It has never been used for what it was intended. It should not have to be used in the future because there is ample space available. It is unconscionable that the government would not give that land back.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of the member for Churchill. She did a good job explaining the misconception that we have no control over our authorities. I would like her to expand on those comments. An important part in this debate is that the will of Parliament cannot be carried out by the airport authority or it will contest the will of Parliament. I find that to be such a weak excuse for taking action that is unacceptable.

In addition to the land planning issue in this discussion, the Minister of Transport identified that there might be a use for the land industrially. We have watched a lot of our farmland being devoured by urban sprawl. That is a big problem for a number of different municipalities across the country. We are losing an opportunity to have a strong agricultural community.

It is appropriate for the land would be restored to the farming institution, and realize the success of the past. Right now that land is leased, which undermines family traditions and lifestyles of farming. By returning it, those families would then have control of the land and the soil.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that farmers and farm families are not being supported as they should be. They were the initial builders of our country. We are always going to need food. One has to wonder why the government would not put supports that are needed in place for farmers not only at Mirabel but throughout the country.

The government thinks absolutely nothing about giving billions of dollars to Bombardier and other corporations over the years. It thinks nothing about giving billions of dollars to companies to invest in other countries. Yet the government gives no support to our farmers and their families, who are here to build our country and who have steadfastly stayed and promoted good living in our country. It has given them nothing. The government is chopping away at all the foundations that keep those farms in place.

There is an issue here. The government has to put greater supports in place. We need to recognize that we will always need those farms. If we allow that land to be continually used for industrial settings, then we will be trying to find food resources for our own people. When we have the best in the world here in Canada, why would we do that?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill for her support in this file. I know she has been sitting on the transport committee for several years.

The minister seems to rely on the airport authority ADM, in Montreal. I would tell you that this is part of the problem. Should ADM decide not to use those lands because it actually does not use them, the only thing it does being rent collection, it could very well have said that it did not need them.

I would like it to tell me how she views airport authorities. Do they have too much power? Would it be time for Parliament to look into giving organizations, not-for-profit corporations enormous budgets, when they do not come under parliamentary control?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that has taken place. In the larger airports it is more prevalent. We need to take that control back. The government has admitted that it does not have control, and that is a serious issue.

New legislation was to be introduced in the House in the last Parliament, which I expect to be reintroduced. Through that legislation, the government was going to give them more opportunity to develop in ways that were not necessarily related to an airport. That is wrong. In this case it is further emphasized because the expropriated land was never used for the airport. It is wrong. We need to get control back over the airport authorities or do away with them altogether.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this motion by the Conservative Party, which asks that the 11,000 unused acres of land outside the perimeter of Mirabel airport be returned and made available to the farmers and individuals who owned this property.

There are a couple of reasons why I am very pleased that my party has brought forward this motion. One of them is that it puts a spotlight on one of the sorriest chapters of the Trudeau legacy in this country.

In the early 1970s the government made an announcement that it was going to expropriate approximately 97,000 acres of land for a new airport in Montreal. To put this in perspective, it is as if the people in my riding of Niagara Falls on their way home this afternoon heard that the Government of Canada was going to expropriate the Town of Fort Erie, all of the City of Niagara Falls and displace every resident in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Those are the proportions that we are talking about.

To put further into context the 97,000 acres of land, Heathrow Airport, which I believe may be the busiest airport in the world, has 2,700 acres of land, Los Angeles has 3,500, and Toronto has 4,200. Even with this motion, another 1,000 acres are available to Mirabel airport over and above that which is allocated to Toronto, despite the fact that passenger service now is discontinued at Mirabel airport and we have no idea from the government when it is going to reopen again, although we hear it will be some time in the future.

Nonetheless, that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about those 5,200 acres. We are talking about the 11,000 acres that are unused and unneeded. That is what we are talking about. I believe it was one of the saddest chapters in the Trudeau legacy. I put it to the Minister of Transport and his friend, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, what is in it for them to defend what so clearly was a mistake on behalf of their party? Neither of them were ministers in Mr. Trudeau's government. They were ministers under subsequent Liberal prime ministers. What is it about them and their colleagues that they cannot admit this obvious mistake?

The mistakes were compounded at that particular site. They grew and grew and never once did the government ever take responsibility for it when there were hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of cost overruns. Members may remember what the government said. It said it was the contractors who were to blame. The local authorities were to blame. At one point the Province of Quebec was to blame. Everybody was to blame except the federal Liberals.

[An hon. member]

They are never at fault.