Debates of Feb. 25th, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member keeps using language that has absolutely no place in this Parliament. This language, in effect, denigrates the Prime Minister of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for her comments, and I am going to ask all hon. members to be careful about the language they use in the House. We should all be more careful in terms of what we say in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

I want to come back to a point he raised about the open banking system, consumer protection, data portability and things like that.

To his knowledge, has the Government of Quebec been consulted and is it on board with the content of Bill C-15? To his knowledge, has there been communication between the Government of Quebec and the federal government? What was the federal government's response to a collaboration on an issue that, honestly, should not be controversial?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they want an open banking system. My understanding is that this was done unilaterally and that the amendments we tabled were intended to ensure that Quebec's constitutional prerogatives are respected.

A broker selling banking products is not a bank. As proof that we are being constructive, that we have a good attitude and that our language is very positive, albeit flowery, the Liberals were forced to vote in favour of several of our amendments on this issue. Otherwise, Bill C-15 would have landed at the Supreme Court time and time again.

There is still a ways to go. When more problems arise, there should be an automatic mechanism in place so that the federal government do not end up at the Supreme Court fighting jurisdictional battles, and that is exactly what we find in the amendments.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend, who is on the finance committee with me, wanted to comment on some of the other pieces of the bill that had to be amended at the finance committee. We have seen over and over again the government's penchant for consolidating power into the executive and removing the powers of parliamentarians. We had to amend this bill at committee to give more accountability to the extraordinary powers that the government tried to grant itself.

Would he like to comment on that or any of the other examples we have had of the government's penchant for the consolidation of power with the executive?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague in high regard. He knows that.

However, despite the fact that I like him very much, he is still a colleague who voted in favour of Bill C-5 and concentrated power in the hands of the government. He is still a colleague who—unless he changes his mind, and I invite him to do so—voted in favour of expropriation to further strengthen the government's powers. In this case, it is actually for a branch of government that is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. He is a colleague who decided to make a deal with the government over the infamous red tape reduction act, which allows the government to violate a number of laws within regulatory sandboxes. Again, this could be a good model. There are models outside Canada, but this is not what they look like.

We are talking about a 603-page bill here. In any bad 603-page novel, there are a few good chapters. Clearly, we could talk about this for hours.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this important bill. I will pick up on some of what my colleague from Mirabel said.

I would like to be asked other kinds of questions rather than being told that I am fearmongering. The Bloc Québécois's job is to read the bills that are introduced. As a constructive and intelligent opposition party, we need to look at the issues in the bills and propose amendments in order to stand up for our constituents.

In terms of Bill C‑15, it was quite a challenge, because it is quite the tome. There are a number of things that do not suit us here. First, I would like to directly discuss all the exemptions being given to the Alto high-speed train project. I am told that it is a good project and that, in Canada, projects generally do not go ahead fast enough. I am told that things need to move very quickly. However, in an omnibus bill like this one, all kinds of rights are being taken away from my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé. I would remind the House that this project, if it ever sees the light of day, will go through my riding.

I think the work that we do is important. Raising the red flag, as we did on our opposition day to get an apology and a commitment regarding the expropriations that occurred in Mirabel, is not fearmongering. The goal was to get an apology for the people of Mirabel, but also a commitment to ensure that such atrocities never happen again. Everyone agreed on that day, and everyone voted in favour of our motion. We are very pleased about that. However, there are still some things in Bill C-15 that do not make sense.

Why should someone who is being expropriated not have the right to be heard by a commissioner? I was told again earlier that we should stop scaring people because the laws have changed since 1970. We agree, but the problem is that in Bill C-15, the government is amending the laws that have been changed since 1970. The government seems to want to return to the discretionary power of 1970.

Two consultations were held in recent weeks very near Berthier—Maskinongé, one in Trois‑Rivières one in Berthierville. I spent a lot of time chatting with people from Alto, but also with people who came looking for facts, to get information and to voice their concerns. I was told not to worry, that everything would be done by mutual consent and that there would be no expropriation by email. I was told that what I was saying is not true. However, when a thing is written in law, even though I am prepared to listen to what a person has to say, what they say has to be truthful. When I am told not to worry, that expropriation laws have improved since 1970, as I just said, I can accept it all up to that point, but then why is the government changing the laws in Bill C-15?

As I asked the Alto officials, if their project is so good, why do laws need to be changed in order to approve it? Is it because everything has to be done fast, or is it to prevent people from seeking remedies and calling things into question? I think we run the risk of making some serious mistakes.

There is a lot of talk these days about wasteful spending, whether in Quebec City or Ottawa. We gave a full list of examples during question period today. There is a lot of talk about the Cúram fiasco at the moment. We need only look at the SAAQclic fiasco in Quebec and the outcomes of the commission of inquiry. What were we told? What happened? How is it that things were allowed to go on for that long? Why were there so many mistakes? We learned that the people responsible for the project suddenly said that it absolutely had to be done and that it had to be done quickly. “Let's go, no big deal. We need to plow ahead and move forward.” The government did not take the time that was needed and did not conduct any assessments, and that is why it was expensive.

Do I want this to be the case for my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé? What are we here to do as members in the House of Commons? As opposition members in the House, we are not the government's yes-men and our job is not to make the government happy. We are here to protect our constituents' interests. That is what we are doing when we raise these issues. I would like to survey the elected members of the House of Commons right now. How many of the 343 members feel that the Canadian Transportation Agency serves no purpose, that it just slows projects down, that it is a hindrance and that we should get rid of that useless agency? The fact remains that it is a recognized institution made up of transportation experts.

When we become members of Parliament, we do not suddenly become experts in everything just because we are elected officials. Unfortunately, many people here believe that they are experts simply because of the status we have here, but that is not the case. The truth is that we are people from all walks of life and of all ages. Our job is to seek expert advice, to inform ourselves as best we can on each issue and to make informed decisions in the public interest to protect our constituents. It is not our job to help a company move faster.

We all agree on one point, and that is that, once a high-speed train has been built, it must be fast. Yes, it has to go fast. However, do the project development and construction also have to go that fast? We should refrain from moving that quickly if it means respecting even one citizen, avoiding dividing even one piece of farmland in two and preserving Quebec's best farmland.

Incidentally, we are not talking about something absurd here. Some 2% of Quebec's territory is farmland. Every time a project comes up, it affects farmland. That could happen again. Farmland will inevitably be affected if the train goes through.

We are not being negative. We are simply asking the following question: Why are citizens being deprived of their right to appeal? I have not received an answer to this question. I am going to be told once again that we are fearmongering. I am preparing for the next round of comments. Again, that is what I am going to be told. I am not fearmongering. I am standing up for my constituents, because that is my job. If I ever stop defending the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, I have no business being here. That is the reality. That is all I am here to do, as honestly as possible, with as much integrity as possible and, most of the time, as calmly as possible, although I do get carried away sometimes.

I cannot understand why the government decided to allow expropriation notices to be sent by email. What shocks me the most is that, when I say that, people say that what I am saying is not true. They said it here and at the Alto briefing. It was not much of a consultation and it seems to me that we can do better, but I talked to some nice people for a while. The first reaction was to say that what I was saying was not true, that I was telling lies. I replied that it was in the law, that it was not a lie and I suggested reading the law together. The person told me that people had to opt in for that to happen. That is Alto's preference, but it is not what the law says. That is one of the amendments we proposed.

How can the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment for a project be removed? I cannot think of a good justification for that. It is not that urgent. First, we are already behind schedule for a high-speed rail line in North America. Let us just accept that. It is not as though we want to be in step with everyone else. It will take five more years, but that is not a problem. I do not mind. It will take two more years. It will take three more years. It will take six more months. It all depends on what happens.

Still, I think that protecting the rights of Canadians is important. That is why we are making an effort this evening, even at report stage, to bring these amendments. I am appealing to members of the government and members of the Conservative Party who support the project. Usually, the best way to pass a project is through social licence. Otherwise, it will fail. Social licence is not gained by taking away people's civil rights. That does not work. It takes a different approach. Things are really off to a bad start.

That is what we are calling for this evening. We are issuing this call and it is important, because the land will remain in our control for a long time. There is usually a 120-day period when nothing can happen on land identified for expropriation. The government wants to extend that to two years. As mentioned during the last opposition day, not everyone in the 10-kilometre corridor is going to be expropriated, because all they need is 60 metres. That is one cause of the uncertainty that people are feeling, yet we are the ones accused of fearmongering. I do not think so.

There are other things that are unacceptable. I have spent a lot of time on this because it affects me deeply.

The digital services tax is simply ridiculous. We are happy to have restored the reduced rates for libraries, but we had to alert the minister to the issue. That is our job. I think he appreciated that we brought this to his attention. That is our job.

This is our message to the government: If they want this project to work, then they have to stop taking people's rights away and not change the laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I also really appreciate his tone, which is much more constructive than that of his colleague. I am extremely pleased to be working with him. He is also my riding neighbour, incidentally, so I understand very well how folks in his riding feel about the train.

High-speed rail is a once-in-a-generation project. It is a project that will enable us to generate significant economic benefits, including in his region. I know he knows that. Many people agree. They really want to see this project come to fruition. We must ensure that we have the resources we need to build our economy.

As I said earlier, as a Quebecker, I am so proud to come from a province that is truly at the forefront of social programs that have been implemented and replicated across Canada. How can my colleague, as a Quebecker, stand up and vote against Bill C-15, which provides care to the most vulnerable Canadians?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. She and I are riding neighbours. I was looking forward to that question. At long last, somebody asked it.

Of course, there are inevitably some welcome measures in any omnibus bill, but there are many others that are not. Our job in the opposition is to identify these elements. We take out a marker and jot down, for example, “why change the law for one specific high-speed train project?”

We are telling the government that it should not do that. If it wants the project to go ahead, it should not do that. People would trust it more. When I talk to the people at Alto and they tell me not to worry and that they will play nice, I want to believe them. However, why does the law say that they can get around people's rights?

That provision needs to be removed. My message is simple: It needs to go.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is definitely a lack of confidence in the Liberal government. I wonder if the member could tell us again why he does not trust the government to follow through on its promises, in particular, the high-speed rail project.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my lack of trust comes from being told to calm down and not worry, that expropriation laws have changed since the 1970s and that rights are protected. I believe those words and I accept them. My response to that is, okay, the laws have changed, so why are they being changed again to make way for the train?

The laws were improved, and for good reason. Legislation and case law are built up in a society through experience, both good and bad. Among other things, Mirabel was a traumatic event that created an opportunity to improve the laws. Now the laws are fair. People's rights are protected, so why are we going to take away those rights?

I cannot trust someone who tells me not to worry and that the government will treat people fairly, when the law is going to state that the government can force people to do something even if they say no and that they will have no right to challenge the decision. I cannot.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill C-15 and the message it sends for democracy.

Let me explain. My colleague, the member for Mirabel, spoke out about the tax on digital giants that was withdrawn to please the U.S. president. In the end, it achieved nothing except to exacerbate the media crisis, because there were no announcements to provide further assistance to local or community media and private media outlets that are losing advertising revenue. Yet there is clear evidence of a direct link between these media outlets, this diversity of voices in the regions, and democracy.

Regarding Bill C-15, I have been approached by many environmental groups who are concerned about the environmental impact of this bill and the fact that it repeals existing laws. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this concern.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly when environmental rights are removed, we cannot help but be concerned. It is hard to feel confident.

When it comes to information, it is such a sensitive issue in regions like mine. Local media outlets need capital investment. We worked so hard to implement the digital services tax. It is incredibly sad to see it being scrapped to please our American neighbours. I understand that in negotiations, compromises have to be made and all that, but it has been a while since it was removed, and we are wondering when we will see results. We need to put other measures in place if we remove this one. We need to protect our media.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Bill C-15 at a critical time in Canada's history. When I knock on doors in my community in Newmarket—Aurora, Canadians are very clear about what they want. They want action. They want results. They know that the government has enough power to make big changes. They are watching and waiting in anticipation. They expect progress, but sadly they are still anxiously waiting to see it.

We have already passed Bill C-5, the major projects legislation. Canadians expect to see fundamental changes in how quickly projects are approved and built. They are watching to see whether the government can finally move at the speed required to compete globally.

They are also watching the broader economic picture. They have been told that deficits must rise in order to invest in growth. However, I warn the government that this is extremely risky given that persistent deficits can lead to inflation. They have been told that regulatory reform is necessary to unlock productivity. While I agree, this must never come with the huge price tag of less accountability and transparency.

Now, through Bill C-15, we are creating regulatory sandboxes intended to accelerate innovation, particularly in environmental technology and financial technology. Taken together, these are significant levers of economic transformation, and we must remember the institutional reality in which these decisions are made.

Canada already has one of the most centralized executive systems in the democratic world. The Prime Minister's Office exercises immense influence over cabinet, its chief of staff, the political party of the government, Crown corporations, appointments to the Senate and the judiciary, the senior public service, major projects and regulatory sandboxes for innovation in financial technology and environmental technology. The government has the capacity to make radical and meaningful changes to address productivity, competitiveness and economic growth.

As Conservatives, we do not always agree with the approach being taken, but we stand loyal to Canadians by supporting legislation that is good for our country and opposing that which is bad. The message Canadians have sent clearly and strongly is that something needs to get done. They expect us to work together to move forward in the best possible way.

I believe Canadians can take real pride in what has happened with Bill C-15. Members of the opposition, civil liberties organizations, environmental groups, journalists and engaged Canadians across the country raised serious concerns about a provision that would have granted extraordinary authority to individual cabinet ministers, what I describe as the powers of a king. As originally drafted, the provision would have allowed individual cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister to exempt hand-picked individuals or entities from more than 150 years of Canadian federal law, quietly and behind closed doors. This was an immense concentration of power in the hands of individual cabinet ministers.

When this came to light, the government said the provision was introduced in good faith, an accidental power grab of immense proportions, but what is clear is that the provision was not drafted with the safeguards that Canadians expect so concerns were raised. Several cabinet ministers struggled to justify it. Heated debate followed. Public pressure escalated. Ultimately, meaningful changes were negotiated and secured by the Conservatives.

Canadians can look at this moment with pride. Political parties rose above their differences. A fundamental issue was recognized, and while I would have preferred to remove these provisions, concerns were addressed. As a result, I have received personal notes from supporters from all political parties saying that they appreciate the amendments.

This is also a powerful reminder of something essential in a parliamentary democracy: the importance of a strong opposition, an opposition that asks questions, examines power carefully and ensures democratic safeguards remain in place. While it is disappointing to hear my Liberal colleagues describe this negotiation as “obstruction”, this is how a true democratic system is to work.

I will now remind colleagues and Canadians what the core issue was and what has changed.

The amendments were on what I describe as the “powers of a king” provision. As originally written, the provision granted individual cabinet ministers the extraordinary power to exempt hand-picked individuals or entities from almost any federal law, with the sole exception of the Criminal Code. This is an immense concentration of power. The passed amendments seek to strike a balance between innovation and democratic safeguards. It would preserve the ability to create sandboxes that support innovation, particularly in the clean tech and financial technology sectors, while ensuring that such flexibility operates within clear democratic limits.

Specifically, the amendments introduced seven key protections. First is a new, mandatory, 30-day public consultation prior to an exemption being granted. Second is equal rules that apply to all participants within a sector, not only hand-picked companies. Third is dual approval by both a cabinet minister and the President of the Treasury Board. Fourth is mandatory publication of orders within 30 days. Fifth is a full report to Parliament within 90 days, explaining the rationale and assessing whether permanent legislative change is warranted so that we can continue to foster innovation. Sixth is a requirement that ministers appear before committee when requested to explain the sandbox. Seventh is clear limits on what can never be exempted, including foundational statutes such as the Access to Information Act, Auditor General Act, Canada Elections Act, Conflict of Interest Act, Financial Administration Act, Privacy Act, Investment Canada Act and other core accountability, safety and national interest laws.

While I would have preferred to remove this provision altogether and have it studied fully to carefully define the limits of any regulatory sandbox and the procedures governing it, I believe the amended language represents a balanced and responsible path forward. It meets the urgency of the moment while preserving the accountability, transparency and democratic standards Canadians expect.

Canadians expect us to move forward, and they expect us to work constructively at a moment when economic pressures and global competition demand focus and resolve. I look at this moment not as a moment of division, but as a moment of responsibility. I want to reassure Canadians that, every step of the way, Conservatives will continue on a disciplined path to hold the government accountable and negotiate changes that are good for Canadians.

I thank every single Canadian who signed my petition and who wrote articles, letters, emails and messages. Their advocacy has won today.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the comments from the member for Newmarket—Aurora. I genuinely appreciate the experience that she brings to the House. The member spoke about productivity, competitiveness and the need for economic growth, which we are very much aligned on, and also the need to work together and the importance of our Canadian democratic institutions.

My question to the member is on the global context of things that are going on in the world right now. Where does she see that continuous collaboration and constructive criticism fitting into Canada's place in the world?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take particular pride in Bill C-15, particularly in the amendments we put forward. This is an example of how we can work together and of how working together will, in fact, make the bill stronger. This is critical as we fight for stronger take-home pay for Canadians, as we work together for a sovereign Canada and as we focus on several issues that are critical for Canadians today, including crime and affordability.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

We often hear that the opposition is here to oppose and obstruct bills. On the contrary, we are here to provide constructive criticism, to improve and enhance the bills under consideration. Bill C‑15 was studied at breakneck speed since it is a 600-page bill containing many, many clauses. There are some good aspects to the bill, but there are also some clauses that are rather questionable.

We appreciated the finance minister's willingness to listen. He was unaware that one section of the bill threatened mail delivery to rural libraries and to the visually impaired. He listened. We proposed an amendment and saved the day for rural libraries.

Could my colleague give us an example of an amendment from her party that improved Bill C-15?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to address the member's comments at the beginning, I wholeheartedly agree that a strong opposition makes Canada overall stronger. That is what we are here to do. We are here to strengthen bills, provide amendments, improve ideas, work together and represent our constituents. The day that we stop representing our constituents, we do not belong in the House.

My speech focused on the amendments that we put forward to this particular provision that would have concentrated power, immense power, among cabinet ministers. We provided a balanced approach in our amendments.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora spoke a moment ago about how we can collaborate together and strengthen legislation, as demonstrated by these amendments. I was wondering if the member could take a moment to speak to the importance of the scrutiny of bills that sound rather innocuous, like a budget implementation act, but are some 600 pages long. Perhaps the member could elaborate on why it is important that the opposition scrutinize legislation that is this expansive.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have loved a bit more time with this bill. It is a huge bill, not only in the number of pages but as an omnibus bill. The Henry VIII provision, in fact, should have been a stand-alone bill and taken out. However, we have ultimately tried to compromise and to continue to provide safeguards while fostering innovation. It is important for Canada, but most certainly not at the cost of a concentration of power and potential abuse.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act with the fresh feedback and concerns of my constituents in mind. The riding I represent is made up of many different communities, but they are united by a lot of things, as are many Canadians. We did not get feedback just on election day. Members are in their communities, connecting with their neighbours and residents, getting feedback all the time.

There is one item, in particular, that is contained in the budget implementation act, the BIA, that has caused me to receive more feedback than any other single issue in my seven years as a parliamentarian, and that is the Alto high-speed rail project. Alto is a Crown corporation that proposes to run a high-speed train from Toronto to Quebec City, with stops in Peterborough, Ottawa and Montreal. It would pass through my region, and it is proposed to pass through my community. The overwhelming feedback that I have received is that it is going to have a detrimental effect for many people in homes, on farms and on recreational properties; for small businesses; for the environment; and for historic sites. I want to get into a couple of those things.

This high-speed rail project will have a train that is going to be travelling at a few hundred kilometres per hour. There will be no at-grade or level crossings, which means that, wherever a road intersects with the path of this train, it will require a vehicle overpass. This corridor, which would be up to 200 feet wide, is going to cut through the communities it is proposed to pass through, with large fences on either side, severing roads. I have not only heard feedback from my community but also spoken with the proponent, Alto, this Crown corporation, and asked if there will be overpasses at every road it intersects with. The answer was no, so this is a problem. This is going to orphan all kinds of properties and roads and create tremendous challenges with emergency response times, which are already challenging in rural areas.

It is also going to pass through the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. This is a UNESCO-recognized biosphere. The people who live in the community know the many different types of rare flora and fauna that exist in the region and in the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. Heritage sites, buildings and monuments older than our country itself, including the Rideau Canal, would be disturbed, upset and destroyed by this project.

Let us think about individual properties. I have heard from hundreds of people within the proposed corridor who have said they are not going to sell. That means that there are going to be expropriations. We heard from the minister at committee this week that those properties will be acquired this year. With a project of this scale, which is supposed to bring Canadians together, and with all of the impacts that I have mentioned very quickly, knowing there are many more, we would expect there to be consultations in the communities it would be passing through. Did I mention that there will be no stop in my community? This is going to pass through. There is going to be no service to the region, and it is going to cost $90 billion.

That is the estimate from Alto and the government, but there are many experts who are saying it will cost many orders of magnitude more than that. We are talking about a $90-billion project, and in my community, that means thousands of dollars in cost per household for a train service with fares that many would never be able to afford, and they have not even been estimated yet. They cannot afford the prices on Via Rail currently. It is expected, and all but assured, that the prices on Alto will be higher.

With all of that, one would expect that there would have been a consultation in our community. They told us to drive to another county, to drive to another district, and that they would be happy to provide us with the pitch there. That is what they have been told. That is not a dialogue.

The people who have reached out to me own seasonal properties, some of whom will not have returned to their seasonal properties yet this year. They will find out about the consultation after the consultation period is closed. I have sent postcards to every business and residence in my riding, asking people to participate, soliciting their feedback, so I can provide it to the minister and Alto. They can fill out that survey at michaelbarrettmp.ca, my parliamentary website.

It is important that folks are able to provide their feedback about something that is going to affect them very deeply. This is about properties, businesses and homes that have been in a family for generations.

I think about the folks who have reached out to me about their grandchildren, about the next generation they hope will take on their farm with intergenerational farm transfers. They are hoping to have their business go to their children or have their grandkids play in the yard. I think about what that would mean for me, if I look at my children Luke, Ama, Michaela, James and Nathan. Amanda and I are so proud of them. Watching them grow up is our dream.

For someone to be told that their property is going to be taken away from them, and that they are going to be told what it is worth, so they can take it or leave it, but not to worry because it is for a really important project for infrastructure that they will never use and cannot afford to pay for, that is not the kind of thing that brings Canadians together.

We have so much work to do in Canada. We have so much work to do to build projects that would unite us. We are a country rich in natural resources, but we do not have the infrastructure to get them to tidewater. We have areas that are looking for very specific transit projects that would help people in dense urban areas. They are looking for projects like this in corridors that exist. That is not what we are seeing here. What we are seeing is a proposal that would violate the rights of many thousands of Canadians, and they are not even being asked what they think about it.

When a Crown corporation is prepared to expropriate properties in a community but is not prepared to go to the community first to meet people where they live, that is not something that is being done with the best interest of Canadians in mind.

I do not have a property that is in the corridor, but I represent a community that has many who do. When I think about my kids, I think about their kids. I think about people who work tirelessly just to afford the dream of home ownership or to be able to have a roof over their head, to farm the land, to feed our country.

I am opposed to Alto HSR, and I am going to vote against it. It is for my community. It is for this generation. It is for the next. It is for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought I was back on Hamilton city council on the planning committee. Every single time a project comes forward, we hear the exact same rhetoric from retail politicians who want to stand in the way because it is politically expedient.

Every single industrialized economy in the world, except for maybe the U.S., whether it is Europe, China or Japan, has a high-speed rail network that brings their country together as an alternative to air travel.

Why not take a leadership role to make this project the best that it can be for one's community, instead of just taking the easy way out to say one is opposed and get in the way?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the corridor that is being proposed to be serviced has a well-established highway, the 401. We also, in that same corridor, have Via Rail service. We are not talking about enhancing the service that exists and taking cars off the road that way. Via Rail continues to reduce service offerings.

Instead, what is being proposed is not, as the member offers, a service to folks in my community. It is quite the opposite. It is a disservice to them at their own expense. I cannot abide it. This is not about not in my backyard. I do not think it should be in anyone's backyard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague more questions about high-speed rail and the contents of Bill C‑15, which takes rights away from expropriated individuals.

Last week, I attended high-speed rail consultations in the town of Berthier, in my riding, near Joliette. I witnessed a massive mobilization effort by farmers, who are deeply concerned.

The government says that a corridor 10 kilometres wide is planned to decide where the high-speed rail will run. The government is also suspending existing remedies, and if something happens to any of the farm buildings, renovating or replacing them will not be possible for years.

Farmers also want to know if overpasses will be provided to allow them to cross this potential route. They recalled that it took many years before they got one in my area. They suspect that none will be provided.

Does this part of Bill C-15 show a lack of respect for our farmers?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concerns about this bill.

The expropriations that we are talking about are going to affect many people. This is something that I specifically asked in this case: Would they guarantee that people would continue to be able to travel in the same way? Being able to get a car over top of an overpass is one thing, but what about combines, large farming equipment, tractor-trailers and 18-wheelers?

The consultation process is not being done in earnest. I cannot believe that at a time when we need to protect our food sovereignty, this kind of disrespect would be shown to agricultural producers and farmers in this country. We cannot abide it.