Debates of Feb. 25th, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my esteemed colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It is clear. The proof is there. We have no indication that the current government will uphold environmental laws protecting endangered species.

It is clear from Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 that those things do not matter. The only thing that matters is the bulldozers.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House, as it is every time. I would like to start, if I could, by giving a quick congratulations to both my son and my daughter, who made it to Speechfest at their school. They obviously got that oratory ability from their mother, not from me. I congratulate James and Maggie.

Of course, the substance of today's debate is the budget implementation act. I will be focusing on an area that particularly affects my riding of Northumberland—Clarke, and that is the Alto high-speed rail. My speech will mostly just be a direct conveyance of the comments that I have received from my riding on the potential impact of the expropriation and the abridgement of the private property rights of many of the property owners along the route.

Just so that people understand, the idea of having a high-speed rail service from Montreal to Quebec City, Ottawa and Toronto, stopping in Peterborough, the great city of Peterborough I might add, is an encouraging thing. That is a positive thing. If people could make it from Ottawa to Toronto in two hours, that is a positive thing, but there are significant challenges. I will go through some of the concerns that some of my residents have raised.

Number one is the impact it would have on their property. In some cases, there are individuals who have farms that have been their family's property for multiple generations, some going as far back as Confederation. That would end. Their property would be bisected, in many cases, by the proposed route. We still do not know what the final route is. I thank the minister for being direct and saying that the final route will be announced before the end of this year. That is positive.

What is not positive is that the minister, to my questions at committee, was not able to give any specific or concrete answers to questions such as these: When will expropriation begin, and how much notice will be given? Members can imagine being one of the residents of Northumberland County who has owned a farm through multiple generations and seeing a bill that proposes that, within a year, they will go from owning their property, which their family has owned for the last 150 years, to a point where it will be expropriated. The least the government could have done was give a defined process to these individuals before announcing the potential expropriation of their property. This should have been announced all at once, so people would be given notice and given a process.

The minister repeated over and over that this would just be common sense. Common sense is not quite good enough for someone whose entire life is wrapped around a rural community. That is where I have lived my whole life. It might be the same in urban communities, but I know for a fact that, in rural communities, people are very much defined by the property they own, the dirt that is underneath their feet. For someone to literally pull that rug from underneath them is a very scary proposition. In addition to that, for those folks who were not directly affected, the indirect impacts could be huge.

Therefore, like I said, I completely agree that being able to jump on a high-speed train going from Montreal to Toronto in three hours, or whatever the time will be exactly, is positive. What is not positive is if someone lives north of the proposed route and they need to get to Northumberland Hills Hospital, which is in the great city of Cobourg. Their drive could go from a 30- or 40-minute drive to two or three hours. The minister could not even tell me, and nor will Alto as of yet, where the crossings will be.

Let me explain. In my area, quite a few people live north of where the route would be, but there is a lot of the infrastructure for those various communities, including the Northumberland Hills Hospital, Highway 401 and, actually, the VIA train, and there are major routes that link those to the rest of the community.

They would put a steel fence all the way along the proposed route, which the minister said is only 60 metres, but it is still 60 metres. Regardless, even if it were just one metre, it is the idea of bisecting a community. Instead of driving directly to that hospital when their child has a fever or their dad has had a heart attack, people would then have to drive that extra time, which we do not know. It could be half an hour. It could be an hour to the east or the west to get to the hospital. It could literally mean the difference between life and death.

That is at the very extreme, but there are also other inconveniences that people in my riding, and in much of rural Quebec and rural Ontario, will have to deal with. There will be many instances where there are students on one side of the high-speed rail and their school on the other, which would lead to extended bus rides. It could go from a 10-minute bus ride to an hour bus ride. These are obviously a couple trips a day that we are now extending.

We also have our farmers, who might have their co-op, which is where a lot of farmers get their seed and their fertilizer. They will then have their fields on the other side. Once again, that can be really challenging because they are not always driving their truck. They could be driving their combine or their tractor. How are they going to get around that? Anyone who has driven a combine or been behind one knows they do not go particularly fast. Are they going to take an extra two or three hours in the middle of harvest?

Those of us who live in rural Canada would get this. Farmers will work around the clock during harvest season because they are at the mercy of Mother Nature for when they can harvest. While it is admirable to save people in Montreal and Toronto a couple of hours back and forth, it is anything but admirable to make rural students in Ontario and Quebec add hours to their day on buses. It is anything less than admirable to make Canada less able to feed ourselves because our farmers are less efficient since they have to drive for hours and hours.

In some cases, their same fields will actually be bisected. They will have to harvest one side and then find a crossing. The minister would not tell me if it will be an hour away or two hours away. We would be reducing their ability to be successful and reducing our ability to feed ourselves as Canadians. These are substantial challenges as we go forward and look at some of these issues.

I just want to read a couple of comments, specifically with respect to some of these questions. These are comments from some of my residents who have emailed or sent notes on social media: “It is extremely shocking to hear the minister speak in this manner, showing so little consideration and an apparent lack of understanding of his own territory. Telling citizens to ‘go meet with Alto’ when these...are merely courtesy information sessions—where staff...take notes without any real decision-making authority—is deeply frustrating.”

This is well put, too. The minister, throughout my questioning, kept putting it back on the residents, kept saying for them to go to Alto. Who is in charge here? I understand that the minister is ultimately in charge and that he should have the ultimate say.

One of my residents actually sums it up very nicely when he writes, “Why is it up to the people who live in these affected areas to tell Alto which roads and amenities are essential? Should this not be part of their own research done in consultation with municipalities prior to choosing a route? I've attended Alto sessions. They have no answers, only vague promises to do right by rural residents. I find this entire process to be disingenuous and flawed.”

Another comment says, “Thank you for this. If you have any further opportunity to ask questions, it would be important that Alto consults regarding the impacts of road severances and travel times for emergency services after the route has been chosen so that townships and residents can give more precise feedback.” The comment continues, “In the video it sounds like they are simply relying on this phase and public consultations to tell them about that.” The person commenting thinks they should be doing extensive research into these matters before making decisions.

They go on and they talk about the various ways this will affect people's lives. We understand and, like I said, it is admirable that we should be making life more convenient for the citizens of Toronto and Montreal, but let us not forget about the citizens of rural Quebec and rural Ontario.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the general acknowledgement that high-speed rail is a positive thing for Canada as a nation-building exercise, as a transportation corridor and as an economic building opportunity to use Canadian steel, Canadian labour and Canadian skilled trades.

I really take to heart his comments about the impacts on the communities he represents. I have worked in construction for 20 years. I have been a part of the planning process at the municipal level. What it really comes down to is building trust with communities in the proponent and also ensuring that, when there are mitigation measures that come forward, they are actually implemented and taken seriously.

How can we help the member make sure that this happens in his community?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the sincere question. The number one thing that will defeat fear is information. What we have been lacking, and what our residents have been lacking, is information.

We understand there are some commercial realities, but if the government is threatening to potentially take away people's farms, which have been in their families for four or five generations, sometimes since Confederation, the government owes it to those people to tell them when they will get notice, how much notice they will get and what potential compensation they will get. That is owed to people who will live on either side of this rail. They need to know how they will get to the hospital and where the crossings will be.

That information is not there. We cannot just forget about the people in rural Ontario and rural Quebec.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 continues a trend we have been seeing with this government. I have been trying to form an opinion on this omnibus bill, on all the laws that amend other laws, particularly with regard to the high-speed rail issue. My colleague mentioned that in his speech, and I will come back to it.

It is a bit absurd that we are talking about this when the Bloc Québécois proposed simple amendments, some specifically aimed at allowing victims of disasters to rebuild. There is a gap in this bill on that issue. The amendment was rejected by the Liberal Party, with the support of the Conservatives. The same thing happened with the provision limiting people's ability to challenge expropriations. The Liberals, with the support of the Conservatives, have made it so that land can be expropriated for the high-speed rail project without the landowners being given the same rights as those whose land is expropriated for other infrastructure projects.

In short, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois made some really good proposals to try to improve the bill. Why did the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge that these proposals would fill in the gaps?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to work with any member of the House who is able to help me protect the rights of the residents in our communities and protect our property rights, which are so important.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, share a lot of the concerns that the hon. member has spoken to, and I applaud him for his remarks in the House tonight.

We have to remember that we are in the House of the common people. We, as opposition and government, are representing the views of our constituents. I have had hundreds of thousands of contacts in my riding, which neighbours that of the gentleman to my left, and they have similar concerns.

Could the member speak to the economic realism? Is this ever going to happen? If it does happen, what will the cost be? There is so much concern, disruption and fear in the world right now, along with how much everything costs. With the troubles that people are having on a day-to-day basis just to survive, how can this project necessarily be a priority for the government?

Indeed, I respect and support infrastructure and advancing infrastructure, but there has to be some answers as to how, when and why this is happening right now.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this proposal, we have a $90-billion price tag that has been floating around. I doubt very much that would be the end cost, and I think we would see substantial overrun.

When we ask the Liberals what the business case is for that, they say there is no business case. If members do not believe me, they can check media reports. We are three-quarters of the way down the tracks, as it were. They are actually hiring a bunch of consultants to do a financial analysis, so they do not believe their own numbers either.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, in the beautiful interior of British Columbia.

Bill C-15 is an omnibus piece of legislation, and the Liberals, in their various forms of government, like in the Trudeau era and now followed by the new Prime Minister, have staked out that the omnibus is a perfectly legitimate piece of legislation. They throw essentially everything, including the kitchen sink, in there. What happens when we throw in the kitchen sink? It means we cannot keep our hands clean anymore.

One of the problems that we have in this particular bill is around the high-speed rail network act. The government is making an effort to get in front of an announcement and say, “Look at us. Look at all the great things we are doing.” We will have a project with very scant details that was first announced by the previous prime minister and then re-announced by the government and cited as part of the building Canada legislation, Bill C-5. By the way, the Liberals still have not gotten around to designating it formally under the act, as is required by law.

This is a process whereby the Liberals simply say, “Look at us. Look at how great it is,” and then throw the implementation, not just to the bureaucracy, but in particular to Alto, a Crown corporation with a private component that goes with it. Essentially, when it comes to the designation of a line, the government has had a very short process for communities that would see this line, if it is ever finally created, divide their towns and their streets and, as we have heard from the previous member, affect their ability to access things like health care. These are important conversations that are not to be taken lightly.

In fact, property rights are something that Conservatives believe in and stand for. We believe there should be a firm rule of law when it comes to how property rights are standardized, and obviously it is not common law solely. There is the Expropriation Act, but that is a long-standing act that decides how government should best proceed to work with property owners to have certainty, to treat them with respect and to actually give them an independent process to use to contest when expropriation happens. However, the government, in its attempt to be the hero, would simply throw all of the messiness to Alto by essentially, with Bill C-15, abridging those property rights and the normal, usual process that would be followed through the Expropriation Act.

When the minister came to committee, I asked him specifically. I said that he would give this power to Alto and essentially freeze people's property. He said that no, it was not like that, but one can imagine being a farmer who is just about to sell. They are near the end of their long career and want to be able to sell at a firm price, and suddenly they are told they cannot make improvements and their land is essentially frozen. As such, if they were about to sell their farm lot to their neighbour, whom they have known for many years, and suddenly the neighbour says they have zero ability to predict whether they will be able to use the land in the fashion that they planned for their model, this would simply drive the value of that property down. Who would blame that neighbour, and who would blame someone else for wanting to come in?

It is so draconian, what the government is calling for, that they could actually say no to new improvements. While someone is going through this process, they would be given very short notice. They would be told that they could not make improvements to their property, and they would be trying to attempt a sale. I said to the minister and committee that this is not fair, but the minister simply said this would all be ironed out through that process.

I should even take a step back. We challenged the minister to look at an accelerated CTA review that would not just allow the project to proceed with timeliness but also provide a process whereby communities could formally submit their thoughts. Instead, Alto is running a consultation process, and it is not the same as an independent tribunal, such as the CTA, that can review all the evidence and make a determination as to where the line should go.

Speaking of where the line should go, there are going to be cases where properties will have a crossing, and there will be many properties that will not. As we heard from previous members, for a property owner to suddenly find that the most direct path they have taken for 20 years to get to the hospital will be closed, and that there will be no overpass that will allow them quick access, has a tremendous effect on people who need to make life decisions, such as being close to health care.

It also means routes are going to be slowed down, so an ambulance ride that would take 10 to 15 minutes might take over an hour now. These are things that are going to be decided by Alto, not by a tribunal that hears the evidence and that says what is reasonable given the stated goal of the project and given the community's very valid concerns.

Instead, Bill C-15 would just wipe all of that out. We offered the minister that, and the minister, just like with all these things, gave a tin ear. He would essentially be giving the keys to the castle to Alto and letting those communities fall into the moat. It is simply the worst way to run a procurement.

Are there some reasonable amendments that have been brought up at report stage? I am happy to say that there are. The idea is that if a property owner is frozen and maybe they have a barn or hen house that burns down or a water or flood event happens, they should be able to restore that property.

That is a simple courtesy to the people who are there, but I will also say that I have some tremendous concerns, because we always talk about the front end of expropriation and the frozen process, but there is also the back end. In every single procurement that the federal government goes through, and the Bloc Québécois member for Mirabel reminded us of this in the House, the federal government does not always do as it says it will.

In fact, it can happen that the government will expropriate or freeze someone's land but then never use it, and there is nothing in Bill C-15 that would protect people from these things. We have a process set up by the government that would essentially allow it to play the hero and Alto to play the villain. We have now a situation whereby Alto essentially has been given the run of the road and could literally run over communities, go over traditional roads and infrastructure, and divide communities without even having to say it will fix it and build an overpass. There would be no process for that. Alto would get to decide. There would be no independent tribunal that could be appealed to.

There is that, and again, freezing someone's assets on short notice is totally waiving many of the protections found in the Expropriation Act. When the government says it wants to be exempt from long-standing law so that it can give the insiders of Alto the ultimate authority, I think that the government has overreached. Conservatives will not support that type of process.

Therefore, we will be looking to support reasonable amendments that start to take into account and to pull some of that power back to the property owners, because these property owners are worried. They are concerned, and so far, these consultation processes are consultation in name only. They are not meaningful, and they are not assuring the communities. As the member for Northumberland—Clarke stated previously, information is what gives people certainty. Unfortunately, through this particular bill, Bill C-15, the government has put no onus on Alto to do that.

Again, Conservatives support those affected property owners. We feel that the government has not looked out for their interests, but if the Liberals do not, the Conservatives will.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we see members of the opposition resorting to fear tactics over high-speed rail.

We know very well that high-speed rail is a generational project that will bring a lot of very positive economic benefits to all the regions between Quebec and Peterborough, where it is going to be.

The opposition member is well aware that the laws were changed in 1985 to ensure that consultations are held and that social licence is assured. However, opposition members continue to use fearmongering and obstructionist tactics, as they do every day.

If the Conservative member is truly here for his constituents, will he support Bill C‑15?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what was said about Alto's authority is absolutely false.

It is anything but absolute. The government holds all the cards. It decides if there should be consultation. There is nothing in here that actually requires the government to do what we originally asked of the minister, to have an accelerated CTA process whereby communities could be heard and an independent tribunal could come down and weigh in on where the public interest is and where the private interest is, to make it so that it is fair.

For the member to say that is fearmongering, no, that is called making a suggestion. That is called a win-win. Unfortunately, by taking the side of Alto and ultimately all of the authority that has been given—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to continue questions and comments.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I went to an Alto event last week in Berthierville where the farmers of Lanaudière turned out in force. They are deeply worried.

In my colleague's opinion, what does Bill C‑15 require in terms of taking rights away from expropriated individuals? If that was not part of Bill C-15, what would stop the project from moving forward, perhaps with a little more respect for the people it would affect?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is absolutely important and imperative for Parliament to decide whether the best way to proceed is with Alto and whether Alto is the best regulatory body. It is a company, not a tribunal. Using an independent body such as the Canadian Transportation Agency would give a great deal of certainty to the communities affected and to property owners who are very concerned at this time.

I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois and other members for working to improve this, because the Minister of Transport does not agree with us.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is the shadow minister for transport. I am just kind of curious. If he had $90 billion sitting in his pocket, would he be putting it into high-speed rail, or would he be looking at places like the port of Vancouver? Would he be looking at things like a national highway that is actually twinned? Would he be looking at other things like that if he had that kind of money?

If we had been through 10 years of really good economic conditions and Canada could be self-sufficient, we would be in a different boat, but we are not. We are a trading nation, so if my colleague had that kind of money, where would he place it?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all ask the question of what we would do with $1 million, but I need to take a moment to think about $90 billion in one project, in one particular area. We could fix up the Trans-Canada Highway. We could establish northern Arctic ports. We could establish much more productive ports that would actually carry out some of the things the government says it is all about, increasing and diversifying our trade. We could spend $90 billion in a lot of different ways.

I think the House needs to consider where we should be putting our money.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 33.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 34. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 43.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 47.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 48. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 49 to 54.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.