House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, when I was on the transport committee and the transport critic for the opposition, I spent a lot of time looking at airports and the air industry in Canada. It is very difficult in retrospect to look back 20 years and say that the government should have closed this one or that one.

We are having our own issues in the province of British Columbia right now with having rapid transit to and from our airport. Many people may not know that the Vancouver International Airport is located in Richmond, which is quite a traffic jam away from the downtown core of Vancouver.

In retrospect, should they have? It is hard to say. Again, as I say, we are 20 years removed, and where we go in the future with that region is a very difficult choice. I think the Dorval Airport is a world class airport, although it has some incredible problems with the immigration system and how it is set up at the airport. The physical setup is not as top of the line as it should be for an airport as important as it is. However, that speaks to a larger problem that the government has in not planning properly for our air industry.

Therefore, we support giving the land back, respecting the farmers, respecting people of Mirabel and respecting people of that region. We still will have enough land, if we do want to resuscitate the airport and have a second world class airport in the province of Quebec. Then we could--

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, Terrorism; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, Justice; the hon. member for Calgary West, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on this motion. First I have a personal story to tell.

The first time I took an airplane at Mirabel airport, I had to stay there 24 hours because the only flight from Mirabel to Vancouver had been cancelled. And so I spent 24 hours in that airport. There were not many people about, day or night. During those 24 hours, the Canadian taxpayers spent $55,000. With better planning, that airport might have worked, but it was empty.

When I look at it, I think we can compare it to other policies of the Liberal government. We have a child care system that is empty and lacks funding. Our health care system is empty and lacks funding. Government business is also empty in that way.

Unfortunately, Mirabel is a metaphor for many of the Liberal government's bad decisions. The motion by the Conservative Party, supported by the Bloc and the NDP, calls on the government to take the appropriatemeasures to sell the 4,500 hectares or 11,000 acres of arable land back to thefamilies and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel airport.

At first glance, this motion makes a lot of sense. We know that the history of Mirabel airport is marred by one of the most useless major expropriations in Canada's history. We are well aware that farmers in that region fought hard against the federal government, precisely to avoid the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The federal government's decision to have this airport built on the site of the village of Sainte-Scholastique and to expropriate 39,255 hectares of Quebec's best farmland wreaked havoc on the lives of 3,000 owners and their families.

Of course, Expo 67 and the euphoria that followed had generated a great deal of enthusiasm across the country. We also had big projects with the Olympic Games coming to Montreal. These were nothing but good intentions for the future of Montreal and for the development of modern infrastructures to increase Canada's accommodation capacity, which is essential to our prosperity. These were of course good intentions, in the context of an election for the Liberal government.

However, we are well aware that good intentions do not make a good government. As we can see whenever an election is held, the federal government's good intentions or promises, whether they relate to health, post-secondary education, child poverty or the homeless in Canada, lack direction and are not followed by action.

The road to Mirabel was full of good intentions, but things did not work. Indeed, the road to Mirabel quickly became a road to hell for the 3,000 people who had been expropriated, for the communities displaced and disturbed by the presence of the airport. A total of 12,000 people were affected by this major displacement. This quickly became a road to hell because of the government's mismanagement, at the expense of taxpayers. A lot of money and a lot of hopes were wasted on Mirabel.

How do we explain this administrative disaster, this Liberal mismanagement? There are a number of reasons. First, there was a rivalry between the Liberal government of Mr. Bourassa and the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau. Mr. Bourassa wanted to build the airport close to Drummondville and then help Quebec City benefit from it, while the federal government was more interested in helping Ottawa and the surrounding region. So, Mirabel was a compromise and neighbouring communities were the victims of that compromise.

There was also a very bad business plan. According to experts hired by the federal government, passenger traffic through the new Montreal airport should have been four million in its first year, six million in 1980, 10 million in 1985 and 40 million in 2000.

In fact, 94,000 passengers passed through the airport in 1975, 1.4 million in 1980, and there were never more than 2.5 million a year. Thus, only half of the passengers the Liberals anticipated passed through the airport in its first year. Clearly, it is not just in estimating surpluses that the Liberal government makes mistakes.

Economic uncertainty in the 1970s saw a decline in Montreal's commercial importance and caused an exodus of corporations to Toronto, to the benefit of Lester B. Pearson Airport. Other colleagues have already mentioned that.

As always, it is difficult for the Liberal Party to admit its mistakes. It was Brian Mulroney's Conservative government that pointed out the mistakes of the Liberal government, just as it was the Liberal government in 1993 that pointed out the mistakes made by Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government. And we still remember the promises that were nothing more than promises.

It was not until 1985 that the newly elected Mr. Mulroney returned 32,000 hectares of land. The airport was using only 2,000 of the 39,000 hectares. This measure only made sense because 95% of the expropriated land had never been used. What a waste.

Unfortunately, at the same time, Mr. Mulroney's Conservatives also handed over the management of the airports to an independent corporation, which complicated the legal issue underlying restitution of the remaining surplus of expropriated land. We all know that ADM is accountable only to itself. The Liberals favour this type of body that reports to no one and does not hold public consultations.

We know that the Conservatives also have a lot of experience in building white elephants. And there were plenty of them. The record deficits of the 1980s were mentioned earlier, but record deficits go further back than that. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the Liberals and the Conservatives produced quite a number of white elephants.

We can think of the infamous Diefenbunker, built to protect federal government against a nuclear attack. Over $20 million dollars were wasted in 1961—which translates into over $100 million in 2004—on a shelter that was, in reality, merely a political one.

Mr. Diefenbaker had decided to forego the building of the Avro Arrow fighter plane, a 100% Canadian technological gem, in order to build a shelter that was quickly made obsolete by new military technology. The Conservative legacy is not necessarily better that the Liberal's. Before I go back to Mirabel, I want to point out that this shelter is now a museum. They even considered growing mushrooms there. Both parties have pretty bad records when it comes to financial management.

Going back to Mirabel, initial costs were estimated at $425 million, or $2.3 billion in today's terms. On opening day, costs had skyrocketed to $1.5 billion, or $5.5 billion in 2004 dollars. The costs had indeed doubled. Five years after opening day, Mirabel had a $20 million annual deficit.

I mentioned earlier that the 24 hours I spent at Mirabel cost $55,000 to Canadian taxpayers.

I would like to pass to another disturbing development that could indicate another Mirabel. It is the question of the RAV line in British Columbia. We were told a few months ago, by the B.C. Liberal provincial government, that this particular development, the RAV line, would not cost a penny more than $1.55 billion in public funds.

We have recently heard that the low bid on that particular project, that is receiving both federal and provincial funding, is actually $343 million above that limit, above which the taxpayer would not be responsible for a cent. We have moved from $1.55 billion to $1.9 billion. We know as well for this project, this white elephant in British Columbia, that 90% of any ridership shortfall will be picked up by the taxpayers. It is appalling that this has been pushed by both the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals. This indeed could be another white elephant.

Coming back to Mirabel, we can look at the needs of our population which are being ignored, needs in health for seniors or for people with disabilities. And funding is insufficient for our education system. During the election campaign, I met dozens of young people in my riding, who never considered pursuing a post-secondary education because of this lack of funding and the enormous debt they would have by the time they got out of college or university.

Yesterday, I met with a delegation of students from my riding. These students told me they were deep in debt. This situation is largely due to the cuts and tax reductions that benefited those who need them least.

When we think about the state of our environment, and the toxic waste poisoning our communities and our children, the taxpayers' money can certainly be put to other use. The Diefenbunker and the Mirabel airport are two monuments of the mediocrity of the Conservative and Liberal governments' policies.

At present, the federal government still owns 8,000 hectares in the Mirabel area. We know very well that it does not need that much land. Ottawa could sell between 5,000 and 6,000 hectares back to the farmers and their communities, to contribute in a way to the revival of these communities affected by the forced expropriation in the 1970s.

But the Liberal government persists in refusing to give away more land to farmers in Mirabel. Yet, contrary to what it says, the federal has some room to manoeuvre. In the worst case and with one of the most optimistic scenarios about the future of Mirabel, like the one proposed by the Transport Minister, 3,000 hectares will be more than enough for the airport.

With 3,000 hectares, Mirabel would still remain one of the largest airports in the world. There will be room for Bombardier and dreams. There will be room for the good intentions of the Transport Minister, but there will be no room for wasting the public's money. We need more efficient management of public funds. If we keep 3,000 hectares and sell the rest of the land, and this is the most important aspect, we will also have room for the communities affected.

The Liberal government should not forget that it is important to acknowledge the errors it made in the past, otherwise the communities in Mirabel will continue to suffer unnecessarily.

It will keep those lands and continue to waste money. At the same time, we know that many important needs are being ignored in the name of so-called fiscal responsibility. How hypocritical.

Everyone knows that Mirabel was a fiasco. No one would dare deny this without being ridiculed. It is high time that the situation be remedied once and for all.

The citizens of Mirabel's communities lost their lands and their community, in many cases unnecessarily. Thirty-four years later, they are still waiting.

It is high time to pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to the community of Mirabel what is Mirabel's.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Scarborough—Agincourt Ontario

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I hope the NDP recognizes what today's debate is all about. It is an effort by the Conservatives to team up with the Bloc Quebecois and nothing more.

The land surrounding Mirabel is under lease. The Conservatives know this. The Conservatives signed the deal. I ask the hon. member of the NDP to recognize today's motion for being nothing more than what it is. It is a partisan ploy that will do little for the rights of farmers in Quebec and everything to do with Conservative political grandstanding. We have seen how the Bloc was created in the early nineties. At the time, the Conservative government split and people formed the Bloc.

I ask my hon. friend, does he realize what the NDP is supporting here today? Does he realize that there is nothing else but grandstanding? Does he realize that his party wants to get into bed with the Bloc? I do not know, but those members probably want to form the Conservative Alliance Bloc.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer grandstanding that helps communities in Mirabel to the inaction and forced expropriation by the Liberal government. It is appalling to me that the Liberal government wants to hang on to all of that land, even though the communities have expressly said they would like to go back to farming that land, the most productive in Quebec.

It is very similar to how the Liberals hoard the surplus. They have hoarded $9 billion. We have seen more and more people in food banks. We have seen more and more families forced out of their homes. We see hospitals closing in my community of New Westminster because of federal cutbacks. There is more and more credit card medicine. We see post-secondary education that is cut off to people in moderate or low incomes.

We are seeing crisis after crisis, disaster after disaster, and all we see from that side of the House is inaction and words. That does not help communities across this country. This motion will, and that is why we support it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster for his question and his speech on Mirabel. He has understood very well. I warn all communities across Canada, following the rhetoric of the Liberals, who have been in office too long.

Indeed, in 1975, they did not achieve the objectives. However, we must never forget that, when they decided to build the airport in the middle of farm land, they were supposed to complete highway 13; there was supposed to be a high speed train; there was supposed to be highway 50 that linked the national capital to the Mirabel airport. All this was not achieved in 1975.

This means that, before 1975, the Liberals, including those in Quebec, like Mr. Bourassa, already disagreed with the federal Liberals' position. In fact, the Liberals had already decided to kill Mirabel. They still opened it because huge amounts had been invested, billions of dollars, with the result that from the first year Mirabel was never cost effective.

Consequently, I would like members to tell all citizens in Canada and Quebec that the government must no longer act in this way. A community must not be forced today to hand over extra land that was expropriated by a Liberal government that was too greedy, that was unable to get a grip on its spending.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In my view, the Liberal government wants to save face and that is the root of the problem. The Liberal government wants to keep all those farm lands so that local people cannot access them, simply to save face. They say that they have a project and that it will work. They only act this way because they want to save face. They mismanaged this file from the get-go. They did not do what they should have to make the airport profitable. They squandered taxpayers' money.

Today, they refuse to pass this motion, which all three other parties in the House support, because they want to save face. There is no other reason.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his comments. His very last comment was that he hoped that the House would support the motion. I can tell the hon. member that the transport committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Transport Minister I am sure is aware, has just passed a motion similar to this which calls upon the government to finally admit the mistakes it has made over these last 30 years and begin the process of returning that land to the people who owned it.

I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary mentioned this because I just came into the chamber, but that was supported by all the opposition parties which represent a majority in the 38th Parliament. All the way around the Liberals are the only hold outs and they have been holding out for 30 years. They have refused to say they are sorry to the people whose lives they disrupted. I know many of the people in the Liberal Party and deep down they are sorry, but they are restrained, whether it is the frontbench or they cannot admit that they made this mistake.

I did not hear all of the comments by the parliamentary secretary. I will ask the hon. member, did he hear anything in the comments from the members of the Liberal side acknowledging this terrible mistake that they made 30 years ago and that they have done everything possible to perpetuate this ever since that time?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, no I have not. I have just seen backpedalling and face-saving. The Liberals refuse to admit that a mistake was made and they compound it by pushing back on this very legitimate motion.

The transport committee has adopted a similar motion. I think what is happening is the weight of three-quarters of this minority Parliament is being brought to bear to address something that should have been addressed years ago. Hopefully, we can move on from this to other issues where we can push the government to take action.

I think of the growth in the number of homeless and the growth in child poverty. That is absolutely shameful. We will also work cooperatively with the three-quarters of the House to force a resolution to those questions as well.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster today and his reminder about the financial mismanagement and the bad project management record of the Liberal government when it comes to Mirabel. It is surely one of the saddest examples of that sorry history.

This afternoon I listened to a Liberal member try to convince me that 6,000 acres was not enough to run a major airport in North America or anywhere in the world. In fact, he ignored the record that Pearson operates with 4,200 acres; Ottawa with 4,500; Los Angeles has 3,500 acres; Heathrow Airport, a major airport in the world, has only 2,700 acres. They do not seem to suffer from the impossibility of running an excellent operation.

However, I thought about this member's speech and the fact that here was a government that planned an airport that needed 100,000 acres originally. It expropriated that much land and caused that much disruption in the community. It just highlighted for me how little faith I have in the ability of a Liberal member to explain to me what was really needed to run an appropriate airport in this day and age.

I wonder if the member for Burnaby—New Westminster might comment on how the parties compare when it comes to financial management of important projects and other government programs.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas raises a very key point. Heathrow actually has less land available than Mirabel would, even though the volume of traffic is immensely larger. It is an important point to underline.

When we come to financial management, the member raises a key point. There is a study that has been done of the last 20 years, from 1981 to 2001, and compares all the major parties and the number of times that those parties have run governments in deficit. These are real terms, not budget, but real terms. Liberals have been in deficit 85% of the time; Conservatives, 66% of the time; and the best record for financial management across the country is the NDP.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, today, we are here to discuss and debate a motion that reads as follows, and I will read it in French.

That the House call on the government to take the appropriate measures to sell the 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose land was expropriated to build the Mirabel Airport.

It was near Mirabel that I learned the French language. During the 1980s, I lived in Saint-Antoine, very close to Mirabel. I worked in a Giant Tiger store in Saint-Jérôme, east of Mirabel.

It is difficult, for people who do not know this area of Quebec, to realize how big this airport is.

To folks who are not from that area and who mostly speak English, I will try to describe a bit of this. I will tell them about an experience I had when I made a wrong turn one time. I was returning from Laval. I got off the autoroute at the wrong spot and wound up driving on to the territory of Mirabel. I drove down this road through the middle of an absolutely empty countryside for a good 10, 12, maybe 15 minutes. I finally got to the airport. I was able to turn around at that point and drive all the way back to get on to the autoroute to continue on home.

This is an area that has been completely depopulated. It is two-thirds the size of the sovereign country of Singapore, two-thirds the size of an independent country with several million people. It is completely depopulated as a result of a cabinet decision that was made in 1969 and followed through by the cabinet in 1971, even after it realized it was wrong.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker.

There were 88,000 acres expropriated, as I say, two-thirds the size of the sovereign country of Singapore, and 3,200 families were forced to move as a result of that expropriation. Only 5,000 acres were used for the airport. As one of my hon. colleagues from the New Democratic Party has pointed out, that is a larger amount of land than is used for Heathrow Airport, the largest and busiest airport in the world. Mirabel has tens of thousands of additional acres that continue not to be used.

As early as January 1971, the Liberal cabinet knew that 22,000 of those acres were not required for the purposes of the airport under any imaginable scenario. Rather than face the public relations embarrassment of having to retract that expropriation, it continued on and depopulated the area of a further 1,700 people who did not need to be moved, but who were forcibly moved to avoid a public relations embarrassment. That is an absolutely astonishing thing to do.

However, this is typical of the attitude that has been taken by that government and by Liberal governments since that time toward private property owners, or even by Liberal governments before that time. After all, it was a Liberal government that in the 1940s that not only rounded up and interned the Japanese Canadians in camps in the interior of B.C. and in other places like Saskatchewan. It also then took their property from them, expropriated it, auctioned it off and then charged the costs of the auctioning against the value of the property. This is the attitude that this government and Liberal governments historically have had toward the private property rights of Canadians.

It seems to me that there are things we could do about this. It is this principled approach that I want to talk about today. It seems to me that we could, as a country, make a decision to ensure that when property is taken by government for a public purpose, adequate compensation is paid. There is no reason why governments should not, when they sense a need, be able to take property from private citizens, as long as compensation is given, compensation that meets certain qualifications. It has to be full compensation. It ought to be timely compensation and it ought to be just compensation.

It is in this spirit that last week I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-279, which would have the effect of ensuring that the 1960 bill of rights be amended to ensure that no property can be taken unless full, just and timely compensation is given. For greater surety, I have added we want to ensure that the use and enjoyment of property cannot be taken away without full, just and timely compensation.

We could, in this chamber, make the decision to put that law into effect. If that had been done prior to the beginning of the expropriations in 1969, it would be families would not have been deprived of their property in such an unjust and unfair manner. Indeed, because it would have had to pay the full price for these lands, the government would have been much more circumspect about taking these lands.

As we know, there were considerable pressures from within the cabinet as to the expenses involved in this expropriation. Had those expenses reflected the full cost to the community instead of being imposed on the community, I suggest the government would not have taken all those additional acres, which it knew as of 1971 it did not actually need. The public relations headache, by admitting that it had made a mistake, would have been outweighed by the financial considerations of having to pay the cost of its own actions. That is the value of property rights.

I want to talk for just a moment about some other examples of the kinds of property rights abuses that we see from governments, both federal and provincial, toward Canadian citizens and particularly toward rural Canadians who have so much of their livelihood and well-being tied up in the ownership, use and enjoyment of land.

Zoning laws can have the effect of reducing the use and enjoyment of property, effectively taking away some of the value of property. Environmental laws relating to buffer zones around water courses, for example, and restrictions on the grazing of animals on property can have the effect of reducing the value of that property. That can amount to a de facto expropriation.

Acts, like the Species at Risk Act, which we passed in the House of Commons without adequate compensation provisions for property owners, can have the effect of depriving people of some of the use and enjoyment of their property. That, again, can amount to a de facto confiscation.

The regulations that some provinces, including my own, have passed regarding water filtration requirements can have the effect of causing community halls to be unable to open because they cannot provide the expense of putting in these filtration systems. I have seen this in my own constituency.

All these are effectively restrictions on the value of property without actually taking that property away. That is both unjustifiable and very damaging to the health of our rural communities.

The example that occurred in Mirabel is merely the largest and, if we like, the purest example of this kind of abuse of private property rights. It is not always the case, and it was not the case with those extra acres at Mirabel, but as a rule there is a legitimate public justification for what is being done. I do not think anybody would object to the goal of trying to protect quality in our water courses. I do not think anyone would object, on principle, to the idea of trying to preserve species at risk. Quite the contrary. However, it does seem reasonable that when we take a measure, we ought to accept that we as a government should agree to pay for the cost instead of imposing that cost on the private citizens who have the misfortune to be standing in the way of that public policy.

This respect for their property and their rights ensures that we will see good husbandry of the environment and respect for the law by those who are being affected by these laws.When people know their properties are likely to be confiscated from them or reduced in their value to them, they will try to protect themselves if there is no compensation. However, if the government finds that they have endangered species on their properties, they are far more likely to do what they can to ensure the survival of those species if they know it will not result in their own financial ruin.

I can actually cite an example from Montague Township, in my constituency, where species at risk legislation had the effect of causing someone to lose some of the use of his property. Therefore, he could not subdivide a lot, could not finance his mortgage and he lost his property. Had that property owner known what was coming, I suspect he would have gone out and destroyed the nesting sites of the loggerhead shrike rather than see the loggerhead shrike survive and he lose his property. This kind of thing happens when one does not have respect for property rights.

This is understood in many countries. It is understood, for example, in some countries in Africa, which have had great success by respecting the property rights of local villagers, of their turning their local elephant populations into an asset for them rather into a resource, which is protected at their expense. The result is the countries which have had that kind of respect for property rights have increased elephant populations. We can look around the world at many places for these examples.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I am very pleased to hear that he used to live in my riding. Unfortunately, Saint-Antoine no longer exists. It has been merged into Saint-Jérôme. It is now a neighbourhood, but it has lost none of its beauty.

I would like him to elaborate somewhat on a specific issue. Does he not find it illogical to ask farmers to invest in lands that are being leased? How does he think these farmers will be able to take out bank loans and acquire equipment to till those lands, when they are merely tenants?

I would like him to elaborate on this.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good point that security of tenure and therefore the assurance that one can mortgage one's property is a very important consideration when one is trying to acquire financing in order to make proper use of one's land. This is a very important thing that one ought to try to do, to simply ensure that one has security of tenure.

We see this in many areas of our society. One of the great problems we find with regard to aboriginal communities is that the lack of something that can be hypothecated makes it difficult to get credit.

Actually one of the great public policy debates we have right now in the area of aboriginal affairs is how to ensure that people can get adequate access to credit. This is true as well for anyone who lacks that security of knowing that the full value of their property exists for them and therefore can be hypothecated on their behalf.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the motion calls on the government to take appropriate measures to sell 11,000 acres of arable land back to the families and farmers whose land was expropriated to build Mirabel airport. We are talking about the 11,000 acres.

I think it is important that the members have the whole history of Mirabel. It is a very interesting story and a very good debate. However with regard to the 11,000 acres, the briefing notes that I have indicate that Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, leased the properties, the 5,000 acres for the Mirabel airport and the additional 11,000 of reserve land from the government and it in turn--Mirabel was leased to ADM and then ADM leased it to the farmers with a term to expire in 2010 and an offer was made to go on.

To me this means that the farmers have been farming or have had availability of that land.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

An hon. member

They had to pay to farm their own land.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

I will finish the question and perhaps the member can clarify it. I need some information.

If the property is presently under the management and control of ADM, how can the federal government sell something that it does not have control over?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is land which is under federal control. The airport authority in Montreal is like any other airport authority. It is under federal regulation. It is effectively a crown agency.

I have to admit I do not know the exact technicalities of it. Part of the problem is that there is the question of certainty that the farmers require. It is conceivable that one can create a lease that amounts to something very close to ownership for the purposes of future planning as to how one is going to use that property.

If for example one does what has been done on federally owned lands in Gatineau Park where people have 99 year leases, many of the same benefits that exist from outright ownership exist.

In this case we see leases that are expiring in the near future. The value of the land itself and therefore any asset that is built on to the land that is not moveable becomes very problematic if one does not have security of tenure. Certain things people can take with them. They can take their tractor for example and move it if they go elsewhere but--

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.

SupplyGovernment Orders

November 25th, 2004 / 5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to speak to the House on this issue.

Although Montreal, Quebec is a long way from my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the issue is one which is very close to my heart for a number of reasons. First, it is about farmers and how they continue to be left behind, ignored and shoved aside by the Liberal government. Second, it is just another example of how the government is thumbing its nose at rural Canada.

There are a number of facts that tell the big picture in this case. That picture is one of men, women and children who are displaced from the land they and their families called home for generations. More than 3,100 farm families, or 10,000 to 12,000 people, were affected by this expropriation. Many farmers over the age of 50 could not find a new job. In one community 80 homes were destroyed and many businesses disappeared. The Department of Transport effectively wiped out the economic life of 10 villages.

It was the largest displacement of people since the deportation of the Acadians. When the land was expropriated, many people fell into depression and suicide was common. This is not just about land. It is about these people, the people who live there and make their living off of it. It is about Canadian farmers who put the food on our tables. If the Liberal government understood that and saw the human side of the situation instead of just the financial side, it would give the land back.

To add insult to injury, people felt they were cheated by the government because it paid them $210 per acre in 1969. That may have sounded like a reasonable figure at the time, but if one looks at 1970, the very next year, the same government paid $2,000 an acre to expropriate land for the airport it planned to build in Pickering.

This land was expropriated 35 years ago. This land still has agricultural value and is part of the cultural identity of the region.

There was no good reason for expropriating the land in the first place and now there is no good reason for the government not to sell it to those who wish to buy it back. This airport is closed to passenger traffic and it is highly unlikely that the situation will change in the foreseeable future.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Order. It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 30, 2004 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were running about 15 minutes behind. Was that an error?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

I was not aware that you were under the impression that we were 15 minutes behind. However, the special order said that at 5:15 p.m. we were to go to the vote and then at 5:30 p.m. we were to go to private members' business.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m. so that we can move on to private members' business.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

May we see the clock as 5:30 p.m.?