Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the policy of the Government of Canada is to always hold hearings. Hearings have always taken place in the context of expropriations. Willing buyer and willing seller is the policy of the Government of Canada, and expropriation of course is always a last resort. Those to whom she seeks to appeal should be well aware of the fact that expropriation is always the last resort of the Government of Canada.
However, I have a specific question for the member. She stated on her website that the bill seeks to amend the Expropriation Act to amend private property protections for Canadians and that it would set out exceptions that seek to “remove some uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners must be compensated for certain types of de facto takings.”
To be clear, the bill would not accomplish this goal. Why does the member pretend the bill would accomplish a goal that it would not?