Debates of Nov. 25th, 2004

Supply

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again members of the Conservative Party show how they take only certain things that were said and do not present the entire thing.

I clearly stated, when I talked about what happened in Ukraine, that the supreme court of Ukraine under the constitution has the legal authority to examine complaints about the election process and to determine whether or not that election process was legal. That is the rule of law. If that supreme court is unable to render an impartial decision that is based on the rule of law, then we have a failed society and a failed democracy.

My point was to state that we have a rule of law in this country. What the Conservative Party, in unholy alliance with the Bloc, is suggesting is that we violate the rule of law, that we break a legally negotiated and agreed upon lease which was signed by a Conservative minister.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Just do what is right.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ADM has offered not once but several times to extend the leases that it has with the farmers until the end of its own lease with the federal government. It would allow ADM to determine exactly what are the needs of Mirabel in view of future development. Also, it would allow the use on an agricultural basis to continue on those lots. Unfortunately, Union des producteurs agricoles has rejected that offer.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean--Carleton.

Before I address the substance of the Conservative motion that we are debating in the House today, as the agriculture and agri-food critic for the official opposition, I would like to take this opportunity to honour the men and women of this country who, day after day, work tirelessly to produce and process the food that we eat.

The value of the work of these men and women not only often gets ignored, but to add insult to injury, over the last few decades numerous levels of government have made life for producers on the farm more and more difficult. Whether it be through burdensome regulations, misguided legislation, flawed assistance programs, or simply being completely ignored in times of crisis, Canadian producers and farm families have suffered greatly at the hands of the Liberal government.

In spite of the Liberal government's legacy of disrespect for the agriculture community, Canadian producers and processors continue to produce the world's greatest and safest food supply.

In spite of being largely ignored during the current BSE crisis, cattle and livestock producers continue to press on with a resilience and a determination to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

In my riding alone, many producers with whom I have spoken and visited have conveyed to me their increasing frustration with the bureaucratic and regulatory nonsense that they have to endure at the hands of the Liberal government's gross mismanagement of the agricultural file.

Agricultural producers have a unique and demonstrable relationship with the lands they own and farm. For many farmers the lands that they own have been passed on to them by their ancestors, dating back several generations. This passing on of the family farm from generation to generation has long been the reality for many farm families. Unfortunately, due to the lack of support and respect that the Liberal government affords to Canadian farm families, the dream of passing on the family farm to the next generation is fading for all too many Canadian farm families.

To have this dream shattered by government mismanagement and poor public policy is a wrong that needs to be addressed by the Liberal government. Canadian farm families deserve respect from all levels of government. Rural issues continue to be ignored by the Liberal government. My constituents are tired of hearing of the Liberal urban agenda and gas tax for cities. They demand better from their government.

My constituents demand a government that will be responsive to, and dare I say this, the rural agenda. It is this lack of attention to rural Canadians that has led to the increasing polarization of rural and urban Canada. That is a shame.

To address the subject of our motion today, a prime example of Liberal mismanagement and disrespect of the agriculture community is evidenced by the situation that Quebec farmers had to face when their farmlands were expropriated by the Liberal government for Mirabel.

Before I go on, I find it highly ironic that Mirabel airport was in large part the baby of the former prime minister, the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In spite of this, it is the height of irony that the other airport in Montreal currently bears his name. Perhaps this was the Liberal Party's attempt to hide the legacy of the former prime minister who gave birth to the Mirabel white elephant, but I digress.

There is a common principle of justice in this country. It is called making amends for past wrongs. For example, the Liberal government recognizes the need to right past wrongs that the federal government has unjustly imposed upon Canada's aboriginal peoples. In so doing, the government is doing the right thing.

With regard to the injustices suffered by Canadian hepatitis C victims at the hands of the Liberals, the government recently agreed to compensate them. In this regard, I would like to commend my hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party who have been unrelenting in their pursuit of justice for those hepatitis C victims. Principally, I would like to commend our health critic, the member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia; the Conservative member for Yellowhead; and the former member for Macleod, Dr. Grant Hill, for their tireless work for justice in this regard.

The Liberal government's capitulation on the hepatitis C compensation issue was the right thing to do. We in the Conservative Party applaud the government for its recent actions in this regard, however overdue its response may have been. Nonetheless, the Liberals continue to stall on other files where they so clearly made poor policy and poor management decisions.

It is no secret that the Liberals told Canadians to trust them with the gun registry. They said it would only cost taxpayers $2 million. We know that the Liberals were never good at math and that their projections for the total cost of the gun registry were off the mark by only a couple of billion dollars.

The Liberals should be ashamed for having treated the public purse with such disregard and disrespect. On behalf of my constituents, I demand that the Liberal government acknowledge its complete and utter mismanagement of the gun registry, do the right thing, and scrap it altogether.

Turning to the matter that we are debating in the House today, the incredible sense of attachment and belonging to the land that farmers feel is precisely what makes what happened at Mirabel such a disgrace. To have displaced 3,200 farm families from their land to the tune of 97,000 acres, an area equivalent to two-thirds of the city of Montreal, is beyond comprehension.

This mass expropriation displaced almost 12,000 people. Much of this displacement occurred through force. Many houses were torn down, stores were displaced and families were thrown out. The Department of Transport virtually wiped out the economic life of 10 villages. Former owners were asked to lease their own heritage for indeterminate periods.

To highlight the complete and utter mismanagement of the Liberals on this file, of the 97,000 acres expropriated for the purposes of the airport, Mirabel never used more than 5,000 acres for its airport operations. That is less than 5% of the total area expropriated.

It was not until a Conservative government was in power that the wrongs inflicted by the Liberal government on these farm families were largely addressed. In the 1980s, 80,000 acres of the original 97,000 acres were ceded back to their original owners. This was thanks in large part to the hard work of Conservative MP Lise Bourgault and the support of the then minister of public works, Roch LaSalle.

We are again caught in a situation that proves once again how poorly the Liberals manage public funds. Mirabel airport is a white elephant, a monument to Liberal arrogance, waste and mismanagement.

The farming families living in the area want to turn the page and go back to a normal life. It is high time the Liberal government take responsibility for this white elephant and apologize to the families that were so badly treated throughout this entire matter.

So unless the Liberal government can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is necessary to keep the 11,000 acres of unused land in Mirabel, it should give them back to the farmers.

On this side of the House, we understand the suffering of these people and we feel for them. I hope that the Liberal government will recognize its wrongdoing, take responsibility and make amends.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to go into a little more detail about how devastating this expropriation of land has been to the government and how it has affected these farm families.

I know from my experience as a farmer that it is very difficult to borrow money when a large portion of one's acreage is leased. I want to know how reversing a bad decision that the government has made by making sure that the land goes back to the producers would improve their situation with agricultural lenders and their general farm operations.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt any time there is disruption it is the cause of great problems for the farm family. Lives are upset and new sources of income have to be found. If in fact they get to keep part of their land, often it is disrupted by roads going through it which prevents the efficient operation of a farm.

It is really a shame that this had to be done. Twelve thousand people's lives were disrupted and for what? So that the government could use less than 5% of the land that was expropriated. It is totally unacceptable that so many families had to suffer.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to ask this question of the previous Liberal speaker, but maybe I can ask my colleague. In her comments she was discussing this unholy alliance between the Conservative members and the Bloc and was really fixated on that. That is intriguing because the Minister of Transport was a founding member of the Bloc and is now taking the lead for the government on this file. I find it difficult to comprehend in terms of the Liberal strategy.

I would ask her to talk about this unholy alliance because I think that here in Parliament we are supposed to work for the betterment of all Canadians and we have shown some good movement on that. I think this is a case where we could actually have some progression. I would ask her to comment on that.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is always every opportunity for progress if we do work together. Unholy alliances are merely names that are given to things. In fact, much of this country has been built through alliances that have benefited the entire country.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on all of these issues it is important to remember, as the hon. member across the way pointed out, the need for us all to work together to advance the interests of all Canadians.

In so doing, I would like very briefly to mention on behalf of all parliamentarians our congratulations to the 10 finalists in the As Prime Minister Awards, who were just congratulated here in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, and who have succeeded in bringing forward terrific new ideas for the future of our country. They are: Ashley Androsoff, Paul Beaudry, Sean Keating, Jason MacLean, Alim Morali, Yongxin Quan, Cameron Sabadoz, Juda Strawczynski, Tian White, and Wendy Yu.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Vaughan—King—Aurora for creating this opportunity for young people to contribute their ideas and make proposals for improving our country.

We have before us a very important motion.

This motion shows that the Conservative Party is the only party that defends the interests of all Quebeckers. Quite obviously, the Minister of Transport has forgotten his province. It is also true that all parties here are working together to find a just solution for the farmers. It is really sad and unfortunate that the Liberals do not want to cooperate with us to solve this real problem. They have elected to be totally partisan and to place their partisan interests ahead of those of Quebeckers.

I am proud to be here as a Conservative.

Let us review this situation. We have farmers who have had their property expropriated by the Liberal government to propel forward a boondoggle, a massive waste of taxpayers' money and what has turned out to be a complete failure. This of course is the result of the tradition of waste and mismanagement in this Liberal government.

Today we propose, in working with our opposition colleagues, to bring justice to this file, to redress the injustice that has been done to the farmers of Quebec around the Mirabel airport, the farmers whose land was expropriated and who now would like to restore their way of life.

But there is a broader question at work here.

The Liberal government has abandoned the interests of Quebec, and those of the farmers, too.

They are against the interests of farmers and this is a prime example: their failure to acknowledge the essential nature of property rights.

Property rights are a core principle of human liberty and that party across the way has continuously denied that right. It runs to the very core of any free and democratic society that if any man or woman works to cultivate and then enjoy the ownership of property, that right is inalienable. That right ought to be protected. It is the core of any free society that we should have property rights. The government thoughtlessly abandoned that key principle of a democratic society when it expropriated this land in the first place.

Where do we go from here? The Conservative Party has put forward a motion which would redress this egregious injustice and allow the land to be sold back to those from whom it was expropriated and those who wish to buy it back.

Of course the Liberals cannot support this motion for political reasons, because to do so they would have to admit that they were wrong in the first place by expropriating it. And of course they will not admit they are wrong. They never do.

They did not admit they were wrong when they lost a quarter of a billion dollars in the ad scam. They did not admit they were wrong when they harassed farmers and sports people with a $2 billion gun registry that cost taxpayers a thousand times more than it was supposed to. They did not admit they were wrong then. They did not admit they were wrong when a billion dollars went missing at the HRDC department. It was a massive HRDC boondoggle. They did not admit they were wrong then.

I see that some hon. members are so afraid to admit they are wrong that they would rather escape from the problem all together.

That is why I am proud of the fact that we are working with other opposition members on this motion. I do not hesitate for a second to say, “Yes, there are other opposition parties that support this motion because it reflects the interests of both farmers and Quebecers and ultimately Canadians”.

It is also interesting that the transport minister, one of the founding members of the separatist Bloc, would stand in the House and allege an unholy alliance merely because the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party, along with the NDP, are supporting the same motion. In fact, the only thing unholy is his party's utter disdain for property rights, for basic decency, for honesty and for redressing what has been a terrible injustice to these farmers.

This evening I will be speaking to a group of farmers in my own constituency. The Ottawa Federation of Agriculture has invited my leader, with me, to address their concerns. They are angry that the Liberal government refuses to support their aims to reopen the border to live Canadian cattle. They are angry that the government has not sufficiently defended the system of supply management that keeps their quality of life in place. They are angry that while commodity prices go up, taxes continue to go up and the Liberal government seems to have no interest and no agenda for rural communities.

That is why the Conservative Party will go to them with a real rural agenda to support the aims and goals of supply management, to fight to get our borders open through strong bilateral relationships with our most important trading partner, to scrap that billion dollar boondoggle, the gun registry, and divert those dollars into security so that we can really protect the way of life and the public safety of our people.

We are going to be fighting for farmers tonight at that meeting. I wish some Liberals would come along to fight for farmers, but unfortunately there are none across the way who have any interest in doing so.

That brings us back to this motion. Farmers who had their property expropriated now merely wish to have the right to repurchase it at a fair value to resume the way of life that was so terribly interrupted by the interference of the Liberal government and its predecessor Liberal governments.

We see that there is no sympathy for those farmers on that side of the House. Earlier today one of my colleagues asked the transport minister why he never speaks of the farmers whose land was expropriated. He speaks of all of the great things he wants to do with the property, all the grand schemes he has. Why does he never address the plight of the farmers who were displaced from their way of life? He stood in response to that question and he continued to avoid that question.

This government has never acknowledged the suffering it caused, the families that were torn apart, the businesses that shut down, even the deaths that were caused because of the immense burden of stress forced on people after they learned that their way of life would be tragically and brutally interrupted.

We have a chance to begin to right that wrong. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to join with all of us as we attempt to redress the wrong that was done.

We have here a motion that unites all the opposition parties to redress that problem. In fact, in one moment of non-partisanship, I ask that someone on that side of the floor stand and reveal to us that they will change their position and they will support this motion, they will admit they were wrong and they will right this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the hon. member. He said in his speech how his party was in favour of rural Canada or some such; I acknowledge I am paraphrasing, but that is roughly what he said.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If they want to say that he was not saying that he was supporting rural Canada, then perhaps I will have to reword my question. Be that as it may, I do believe he said in his remarks that he was and that his party was. This really forces me to ask the next question because of an incident that occurred not that long ago.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, because you are an extremely knowledgeable person being the non-partisan individual that you are, you will recall that a tremendously successful program for the economic development of eastern Ontario was announced lately.

In that announcement of a program, a program that had been founded by the reeves and wardens of eastern Ontario, adopted by the government, put in place and enacted, the member for the then riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington in rural eastern Ontario criticized the program, said that it should not have occurred and was called to task by one of the wardens in his constituency. Similarly, the Conservative member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry did the same thing and he too was chastised by his constituents.

Therefore, I want to ask the member, in light of what he says, can I assume that his party is now on the side of rural Canadians or is his party still on the side of what the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and the member for Lanark said the other day? We would like to know which it is and rural Canadians really want to know.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention, crafty as always. I do note that the hon. member changed the subject dramatically. Is it not interesting how he did that?

I wonder if other members in the room noticed that. I see some heads nodding. When I asked someone on that side of the House to stand and acknowledge the pain and suffering that his Liberals caused, the only response he could give was that there is a program to dispense Liberal handouts, which he alleges does not have support from other parties. Wow: what an amazing leap from one subject to another. That, I would suggest, is a fairly breathtaking accomplishment, that he could make such a rhetorical jump from one point to another. I think I am praising the hon. member too much, but the point is that it is very impressive that he could make that linkage.

We stand for rural Canada and let me tell the hon. member how. We stand for rural Canada. We will scrap the gun registry that seeks to make criminals out of farmers. We will fight to get our borders open and we will stop insulting the biggest consumer of Canadian beef. We will defend the interests of agricultural industries that are protected by supply management. And we will step up to the table and find real solutions to the trade problems that western farmers as well have when they try to export their products.

We will fight for rural Canada as we always have and we urge the hon. member across the way to change his position and do the same thing.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased of the new position vis-à-vis rural Canada of the hon. member. The people of rural eastern Ontario, particularly the wardens and mayors will appreciate that. I hope that they get the respect in the future that they deserve rather than the criticism of his two colleagues of a few weeks ago.

I want to get to my next question about Mirabel. As the hon. member will know, I represent the constituency adjacent to the Mirabel constituency. I have a large number of constituents who work there. It is very important to the economy of my constituency as it is for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

Does he not believe that the process that the administration of Aéroports de Montréal has put in place, waiting for these proposals for the future of Mirabel, should be concluded?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first time, the hon. member engaged in a fit of rhetorical gymnastics that took him to an entirely different subject. This time, he is trying to distract from the issue by engaging in an administrative distraction.

We believe that all of these processes can be worked through in a justifiable and workable fashion, but, at the same time, the hon. member ought to recognize that these farmers deserve to get their way of life back. For him to use bureaucratic obstacles as a reason to stop that from happening is really disappointing.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion before us this afternoon. I want to thank the Conservatives for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important issue. I have the feeling they may have taken their cue from the motion we will be debating this afternoon at the Standing Committee on Transport. I would assume that they will support us, that the NDP will support us and that perhaps some members from the Liberal Party will show some openness.

It is important to go over some of the past events so that they are fresh in our minds. The chronology is simple, but the result is tragic. We must remember these events to prevent history from being repeated, although some would like to forget them because there was such incalculable loss.

There is the political debate and the economic debate, but most importantly there is the emotional debate when it comes to the saga of Mirabel airport, which my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel explained very well.

Think about the loss of some of the most fertile land in Quebec. Think about the loss of this unique heritage. The human cost was enormous. Farms were completely demolished or burned, businesses were destroyed and hopes were dashed.

More than 3,000 families were affected and more than 10,000 people expropriated, uprooted from their family farms. That is the emotional debate, the practically irreparable human tragedy that, today, the Minister of Transport still refuses to acknowledge.

What happened was this. In March 1969, the federal government announced its intention to build the new Montreal international airport, better known as Mirabel. To carry out its project, the government decided to expropriate 97,000 acres of the best crop land in Quebec. That is when the tragedy began, but it did not stop there.

This was the largest expropriation Canada has ever seen. This project was 10 times larger than any of the world's largest airports, 27 times larger than the area covered by Dorval airport. The government expropriated nearly 20 times more land than necessary—an area bigger than Laval. We call that thinking big. If I were speaking to my children, I would say that their eyes are bigger than their belly.

On October 4, 1975, the new airport opened for business. The Liberal government under Pierre-Elliott Trudeau opened Mirabel airport with great pomp and ceremony. I did not hear his speech because I was still quite young, but I have seen the black and white reruns. Today when I listened to the Minister of Transport, I thought Mr. Trudeau was back among us.

At the time, Mr. Trudeau called Mirabel the project of the century. He said that traffic would rapidly grow to 4, 6 or 10 million passengers, and be multiplied by 6 in 50 years. We are far short of this total and today we might call it the fiasco of the century instead. History confirms this.

On February 20, 1996, ADM announced the transfer of international passenger flights from Mirabel to Dorval. On October 31, 2004, the last passenger flight landed at Mirabel, in total disarray.

Why is it that we have seen the closing of the only airport of international stature, an able competitor with Pearson in Toronto? Why has the eastern door to North America been shut although it could have guaranteed Quebec a first-row place on the international stage?

History teaches us that decisions made in Ottawa, since 1970, are behind the current situation. Once again, another scandal, caused by poor management by the Liberals. October 2004 marked the sad finale to what ought to have been a hub of eastern North America's air traffic. We can call this saga a monumental fiasco, a shameless waste of public funds, decisions that made a major disservice to Quebec, especially to the people of Mirabel, to farmers and others who believed in their region's development, to business people who believed in the economic development of Quebec.

Many decisions led to this economic disaster. For example, if the federal government had been consistent with its decision to invest in Mirabel, it would not have given a systematic advantage to Toronto over Montreal, since it is the federal government that grants landing privileges to international airlines.

Passengers in eastern Canada find themselves in the deplorable position of having to change planes in Toronto to get to Europe even though Montreal is better situated, geographically, to serve this region.

The result of this situation is that everyone loses, including travellers and Quebec's economy.

If the federal government had followed up on its plan, it would have completed the Mirabel project to make it fully competitive. For example, it would have completed the infrastructures that were essential to the airport's development, namely highways 13 and 50, and the railway link with Montreal. But it did not do so. In fact, it did not do anything.

However, this year, the federal government injected over $200 million to build an air-rail link in Toronto. This does not make any sense; it is so inconsistent. On the one hand, the government invests millions of dollars in the development of a new international airport in Montreal, while on the other hand it gives to an airport in Toronto the international flights and the necessary infrastructures, in other words all the means necessary to expand its operations. The government is giving to Toronto everything that Mirabel needed to develop and protect its future.

The government will soon be put to the test, since the new Minister of Transport recently talked about the importance of having a direct link with Dorval. I hope that, this time, he will realize that a project cannot achieve its full economic development if it remains incomplete.

I just presented a sad account of past events. Let us now look to the future, because I am fundamentally a positive person and my philosophy is that we should learn from past mistakes to grow and avoid repeating those mistakes again. Let us talk about the future, about hope and about concrete measures to give back to those farmers and owners who were expropriated in Mirabel interesting and lasting future prospects.

Today's motion is critical for farmers and for those who were expropriated and who want to get back the 11,000 acres of land that were expropriated in excess of what was needed. This land is currently being leased until the year 2023, but its development is jeopardized by the temporary nature of the rights of the farmers who are using it. It is difficult for them to convince financial institutions to lend them money to invest in their facilities. Moreover, these farmers are reluctant to undertake expensive projects to improve the land, since they do not know how long they will be able to use it.

If the government wants to take an initial concrete measure for its new chapter, as the Minister of Transport so aptly put it, I already have a title to suggest to him: “Correcting Past Mistakes and Returning the Land to Mirabel Farmers”. The minister has an opportunity to make history, to do things differently from his predecessors. I am anxious to see what he will do.

The Bloc Québécois has asked a lot of questions in the House on this very subject and, every time, the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary mentioned a lease between the Government of Canada and ADM. Again today in the House, the Minister of Transport mentioned the lease. However my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel explained very well all the facts regarding these leases. As he said, it is totally irresponsible on the part of the government to hide behind these leases and claim it is impossible to agree on new terms and conditions.

It is important to note that 17,000 acres still belong to the federal government. The expropriates are demanding the return of 11,000 of these acres for agriculture. So, that leaves 6,000 acres for Mirabel to use and for any future development. Just to reassure the Minister of Transport, 6,000 acres, that is twice the size of Dorval. So, the return of that land would not affect potential industrial and aeronautical development at Mirabel and would not jeopardize the future of Mirabel as an industrial park.

The government should recognize that, in its delusion of grandeur, it expropriated far too much land and it still has a lot of room to manoeuvre in the future. It can commit to returning the 11,000 acres of agricultural land farmers are asking for without affecting the potential development of Mirabel since, even if the airport was operating at full capacity, which is not the case, these 6,000 acres would be enough to meet its needs.

The Minister of Transport did not convince me with his long speech. Returning the land to farmers does not mean closing Mirabel for ever. On the contrary. It will not prevent development nor will it prevent Bombardier from developing.

If the minister wants to talk about Bombardier, let us talk about Bombardier. However, we should also talk about aerospace policy. As a matter of fact, the Bloc Québécois put forward a motion in this House asking the government to develop an aerospace policy. And what has the Minister of Transport done? We are still waiting for it. The whole industry is still waiting for it. The minister missed yet another opportunity. When the minister talks about development, he must look at the bigger picture and not be shortsighted as in the case of Mirabel.

Over and above today's motion, I would also like to remind hon. members of the importance of preserving what has been achieved as well as keeping all options open, among other things by keeping the present Mirabel facilities in proper condition. This time, the government needs to keep its promises. We remember the promise about keeping charter flights at MIrabel, yet now they are flying out of Dorval. That is why we need a formal commitment to keep the Mirabel facilities in proper condition, and also to keep cargo flights there, not transferred to Dorval.

My final point is the importance of having an international trade zone. If the Minister of Transport really wants to contribute to the development of Mirabel Airport—and we will be needing some proof of that—he ought to convince his government of the importance of putting in place some simplified regulations on customs duty and sales tax exemption or deferment for companies using Mirabel in order to develop its full potential in an industrial and cargo-only context.

Hon. members will recall that, in 2000, the Government of Quebec implemented an international trade zone at Mirabel in order to take advantage of the airport's presence and step up the economic development of the Lower Laurentians region. The federal government has never supported this initiative, despite its effectiveness and its job-generating potential.

The cargo-only vocation of Mirabel must be supported by reinforcing the Mirabel international trade zone, making it an international-calibre industrial park with special regulatory zones.

A significant federal indication in favour of the international trade zone will be one way of reducing the negative impact of the transfer and the fundamental errors committed by the federal government in the past. Moreover, on March 5 this year, the Prime Minister made a statement in my riding, in Longueuil, that he was in favour of tax-free zones. I invite him to put his money where his mouth is.

To conclude, it is very important to keep in mind that returning the 11,000 acres to their owners will not in any way affect the development of Mirabel's aerospace potential. These are two completely different things. I hope that, at the end of the day, the minister will at least have moved in that direction and understood at least that part of the debate.

For the Bloc Québécois, the future of Mirabel is just as important as showing respect to the farmers and former expropriated property owners of Mirabel. That is why we are in favour of an approach that will be a response to the imperatives and interests of all parties.

First and foremost, however, the federal government must, if not make apologies, at least remedy its past errors and sell back the surplus expropriated land. As far as the future is concerned, the federal government now needs to ensure that Mirabel develops fully and to contribute to that development. It has a duty to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher on her excellent speech. She made it quite clear that we will not compromise the development of the aerospace industry in Mirabel. These 6,000 acres have nothing to do with the 11,000 acres that we are talking about.

It is important to mention this to those who are listening. This morning, the minister had a tendency to try and mix everybody up and suggest that if the 11,000 acres were to be sold back, this would compromise the whole Bombardier file, but this is not the case at all.

We have to understand what we are trying to protect in Mirabel. It is true that we like to say that Mirabel is a cargo airport. However, we know that there is presently some sort of a problem in the cargo sector in the sense that, for economic reasons, more and more cargo is being transported in passenger planes, thereby reducing the price of airline tickets.

It is true that Mirabel is an all-cargo airport, but 80% of that cargo is mail. Mirabel is mainly a mail courier airport. I am very happy that my colleague has said that it was essential to develop the cargo-only potential at Mirabel. We have to put pressure on the industry.

I would like her to give a brief overview of the situation and to explain what her interest is in seeing Mirabel's cargo-only potential developed and in keeping the 6,000 developed acres in operation. We all know that the 11,000 acres are a separate issue.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague for his question. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank him for the outstanding work that he has done. He is the member for the Argenteuil and Papineau regions, for also for Mirabel. For years, since he joined the Bloc Québécois, he has constantly stood for not only Mirabel Airport, but also for the people who live in that area. They are often forgotten. There is much talk about Mirabel Airport and major economic development, because it has benefits for everyone. However, my colleague has also always raised the human issue of the farmers. I think that he deserves all our support for the wonderful work that he has done for the people in his riding.

As to his question, indeed, this is very important. To me, of course, today's motion is crucial. Huge errors have been made. We are unable to even get apologies from the government. Consequently, we are asking for the lands to be sold back. However, the government must also suggest some ideas. It has talked about an aerospace policy that we are still waiting for. Now, it must also talk about economic development, because it must not leave the region high and dry.

Of course, the minister proudly tells us that four projects are on the table. I challenge the minister to tell us about them, because even he does not have all the details. In fact, knowledge about these projects is limited to a group of people, which is dangerous, since it is the whole future of Quebec that will suffer if we do not become involved.

We want to be part of these projects. I am looking forward to my colleague always being interested in the future of Mirabel and the people who live there.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher as well as my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

The party across the way does not seem to realize that it has lost the confidence of the majority of the population. It is stubbornly unyielding on the demands of Quebec in general, and in particular the riding affected by the Mirabel airport issue. It contends that the Conservative Party only has the support of the Bloc Québécois, when in fact it has the support of the majority of the House. The NDP also supports this position. The only party to stubbornly refuse to recognize that the people of Mirabel have been robbed is the governing party.

In that sense, I think that we are not just talking about the airport per se, but also about very fertile agricultural land. I think that Quebec has been deprived of agricultural production in the areas surrounding major centres that would need such production. Right now, we are importing from Ontario the production that we have lost.

I would ask my hon. colleague if she can confirm this.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to show too much enthusiasm, but I do feel like answering yes. I thank my colleague for his question.

However, I would have expected, given the return of the Minister of Transport— he who often speaks of opportunism and who is above that, of course—a new way of looking at things. Indeed, I would have expected from him a new approach to politics.

Obviously, we are not of the same age, but I got into politics at the same age he was when he got into politics. However, I moved into politics because I wanted to do things differently and I feel I chose the right party.

The Minister of Transport has made several errors along the way and we cannot hold them against him. That being said, I would have expected that, as Minister of Transport, he might have felt like changing the world, repudiating what his predecessors had done and saying, “I will not be like that. I am going to apologize to the people of Mirabel and I will make some concrete proposals. I will sell back the lands to farmers because, in fact, a mistake was made”.

No, sad to say, the Minister of Transport made the same speech that Pierre Elliott Trudeau made years ago. However, maybe because I have confidence in the future, one day the minister will change and will propose something different from his predecessors. We will see.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to address what is a very important issue. I believe this is a great injustice, one that is old in a sense but one that is renewed because the government is refusing to step in now and right an old wrong.

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that I am splitting my time with the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.

This is an issue that goes back 35 years, and it deals with Mirabel Airport. At that time, 97,000 acres of land was expropriated. When this was done originally, it was rammed through, it affected approximately 12,000 people and it was completely unnecessary. The government of the day completely miscalculated the amount of land it would need to set up Mirabel Airport, which was a disaster anyway. It was a huge white elephant, and to this very day, we are still finding out how much of a white elephant it really was. It got smaller and smaller, and now it only takes cargo.

The point that I am trying to make is the government expropriated a tremendous amount of land unnecessarily. Cabinet documents, which were revealed in the last little while, show that the government recognized a couple of years after the expropriation had taken place that it had made a huge mistake, but it decided to plough on anyway.

A number of issues flow from this. One of them is the complete disrespect for the thousands of people who the government threw off the land. It is a story of an abuse of the power to expropriate because the government did not take the time to think it through. The government of the day was completely ham-fisted in its approach to this. It did not use its powers carefully. People who did not have to leave the land were thrown off it anyway.

It is also a story of a complete lack of respect for the issue of property rights. This is an important part of our fundamental freedoms. Unfortunately, the government does not understand that. We see that reflected all the time in legislation. We saw that with the species at risk legislation where the government again took a very ham-fisted approach that would allow people to be forced off their own land, if somebody noticed some kind of endangered species on it. They would not be allowed to have access to that land and would receive no compensation for losing the enjoyment of it. We see this consistent pattern when it comes to the government and the issue of property rights.

Today this injustice continues. It was an injustice 35 years ago when the government threw thousands of people off the land. These people today are still in situations where there has been tremendous human suffering. These are ancestral lands, which people had owned for generations. They were thrown off them and in some cases were provided some very small compensation at the time.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

What did you do when you were in government?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

My friend across the way, the transport minister, asked what did we do when we were in government. First, I was not in government, but tens of thousands of acres were returned to these people. What did the Liberal government do? Nothing. It has done absolutely nothing and it displays the contempt it has for people on the land. We see it all the time. It is an attitude that is so prevalent. On the issue of BSE and on the farm crisis in generally, the government will be pushed eventually to do things, but it is always dragged kicking and screaming. It just does not get it. It has a complete lack of respect for people on the land.

I argue that this is even more fundamental than that. It goes to an arrogance that accompanies Liberal governments wherever they go. It goes beyond that. It goes to a lack of respect, again, for the issue of private property, something that is so fundamental to not only this country, but western civilization. It is important as a fundamental freedom. We cannot have freedom unless we can have the right to own property, to use and enjoy it. Unfortunately, the government routinely shows a complete disrespect for that fundamental right.

In this case, I know my leader was out talking with these farmers not very long ago. People have been protesting at Mirabel airport. I have to admit I was not very aware of this issue. However, when we dig into it we find out how fundamentally wrong it is. These people are now asking for their land back. They are not asking for it to be just handed back to them by the way. They want to buy the land back. This is land that the government will never use because the airport has continued to shrink. Now it is mostly a cargo airport.

However, that is not the point. The point is these people are willing to buy it back at fair market value. The government is refusing to listen to them. It is refusing to give them a fair hearing. This is where I think the government is perpetuating that injustice of 35 years ago. We have two injustices: what happened 35 years ago and what is happening today because the government will not listen and will not do what is right to help these people.

Farmers across the country need a break in a whole bunch of different ways. We have problems with getting beef and cattle across the border because of BSE. We have problems with trade disputes with durum wheat. We have all kinds of markets being shut down to us or we cannot get into because of unfair subsidization from other countries around the world and we are being pushed out of those markets. Commodity prices are falling.

In this one instance, where the government has a way to directly help farmers, it just turns a blind eye. That is unforgiveable. Liberals have a moral obligation to listen to what these people are saying, to hear them out and right a wrong. They have an obligation to say to them, when it comes to the use of the government's powers of expropriation in the future, that they will be much more careful, that there will be full compensation and that they will not use the ham-fisted approach that governments too often use when it comes to the power of expropriation. This is an issue that the government has an obligation to address today.

I am very happy to work with other parties in this House, whether it is the Bloc or the NDP who support us. In fact, the government transport minister is heckling me about being in bed with the Bloc. That member over there was a founding member of the Bloc Québécois. This is unbelievable hypocrisy.

Let me say that we are united, not only with other parties, but we are united with the farmers of the country to do what is right. I cannot believe the government across the way sits there and laughs this off. It is a serious issue. Natural justice decrees that the government has to address this issue. It has to do it right away. These people need to have the opportunity to purchase their land back at fair market value. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is what should be done. It is what is right.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from Medicine Hat for that great presentation. Would he expand a bit more about the lack of compassion the government has shown for the farmers in the Mirabel area and how this has been devastating to their livelihood? Would the member explain how the farmers lack of an asset base has affected their overall farming capabilities?

Also would he expand upon the whole issue that the government put in place, of this great dream, and only used 5% of the land that was ever required to build that airport? It is only 5,000 acres, but that still makes it one of the biggest land based airports of virtual insignificance in the world. If we compare Mirabel with Los Angeles, Heathrow and Chicago, they are working on much smaller land bases and still have become major international airports.

If the hon. member would like to expand upon those issues, I would appreciate it.