Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise today to speak during our opposition day debate, except that I am doing so because the people of Mirabel, and potentially other places in Canada, are experiencing a situation that is distressing, to say the least.
Our motion today stems from the idea expressed in a simple quote: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is exactly what we want to do with our opposition day. We want to ensure that, at a minimum, history is properly understood, and by offering an apology, we can provide assurances that it has been understood so that we can avoid repeating the same acts that were catastrophic in Mirabel, among other places, some 50 years ago.
All of this is taking place in a rather interesting historical context, because, not so long ago, the Prime Minister gave a rather intriguing speech at the Quebec Citadel in which his rewriting of the facts showed, at best, a lack of knowledge about Quebec's history and, at worst, contempt for it.
We therefore have to wonder whether the government cares at all about Quebec's reality or whether it is just focused on moving forward as quickly as possible with the high-speed rail project. At the risk of repeating what my colleagues have already said, we support that project. What we have a problem with is the approach that is being taken.
From what we have seen, there is cause for concern when the government gets involved in a project. We are seeing that right now with the Cúram software. The government is telling us that it is going to hold consultations. However, in a project already riddled with cost overruns, the government is not even listening to its own officials when they say that there are flaws, that the software they have implemented is poorly designed. We therefore have to wonder whether the government will really listen to the public.
The government keeps telling us that it will follow best practices, that it will ensure that the studies, consultations and discussions with the public are conducted properly. However, at the same time, the government has given itself the right to completely rewrite these best practices. It is on the ice and rewriting the rules of the game in the middle of play.
I listened to most of the speeches by the Liberals today. I find it interesting that when asked about the content of our motion, no one seems willing to commit. However, our motion is quite simple, and I would be curious to know which part of the motion makes them hesitate to say right away that they are willing to vote in favour of what we are proposing today.
Our motion reads as follows:
That the House call on the government to apologize to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel.
It is also a unanimous request from the Quebec National Assembly. We are constantly being told that it was a disaster and that it must never happen again. In that case, what would it mean to offer an apology?
The second point of our motion reads as follows:
[That the House call on the government] to acknowledge the collective trauma these expropriations caused for thousands of Quebeckers who were forced to abandon their homes, their communities and their livelihoods...
My colleague from Mirabel, among others, gave some striking examples of this this morning. Even on the government benches, they were talking about this trauma. It seems easy enough to acknowledge.
Finally, the motion says:
[That the House] urge the government not to undertake such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation.
The Liberals are telling us that this is what they want to do. Why is it a problem, then, for them to support the motion? I wonder about their real intentions and I wonder how they will vote on our opposition day motion.
The Minister of Transportation, who is also the Leader of the Government government in the House of Commons, somewhat set the stage this week regarding the government's approach to this issue. I would like to quote some of the answers he gave to my colleague from Mirabel during oral question period. He said this:
Mr. Speaker, why did the member not stand up to oppose Quebec's Act Respecting Expropriation, which made it possible to build and complete the Réseau express métropolitain? The bill is based on the exact wording of that Quebec act and Ontario's legislation, which also allows for the development of public transit projects. This is not new, and we are obviously going to negotiate directly with the property owners.
His answer tells us a lot. I will not say that he is trying to mislead the House because that would be giving his comments more weight than they deserve. The law he is referring to allows people in Quebec who receive an expropriation notice to challenge that decision, either the right to expropriate or the amount that will be allocated, before Quebec's administrative tribunal or the Quebec Superior Court.
Meanwhile, the government used Bill C-15 to amend the Expropriation Act so that the transport minister can set a price without a hearing, so there is no comparison between the two acts.
Alto, the company responsible for the project, is giving itself a right of first refusal, which will limit what owners are able to do with their property. This will limit the choice of buyers. The financial offer made to them will be non-negotiable. For example, a farmer who has a right of first refusal imposed on his land would not even be able to farm it. Who would want to buy such land? That alone will have a huge impact on the price.
There is also the fact that sections 9 and 10 of the Expropriation Act require the appropriate minister to hold public hearings on a planned expropriation, but Bill C-15 explicitly repeals that obligation. That means what the government is saying is that there will be no public hearings like there are under Quebec law.
The Minister of Transport said earlier that if we agreed with what happened in Quebec City, we should agree with what is happening here. I am tempted to say that he was misleading the House, and not just the House. In another response to my colleague, the Minister of Transport said this:
Mr. Speaker, in fact, consultations were held and there will be more. We are consulting all the mayors and community stakeholders in the Lower Laurentians, across the entire region, as well as in Quebec and Ontario. Guess what? Canadians are excited about this new technology, this progress.
Come on. My colleague is comparing an international airport to a small corridor that is 60 metres wide. Give me a break.
What he forgot to mention is that those 60 metres will be located in a 10-kilometre-wide corridor where a right of first refusal may apply. Alto is reserving this corridor for the high-speed train, and it informed people of this through email. People are panicking, particularly in Mirabel, a place whose wounds from the expropriation that people experienced 50 years ago have yet to heal.
Knowing that they may not be able to resell their homes, even if the rail line does not end up passing through their property, and that they will not be able to renovate, repair or do any work until they find out whether there will actually be an expropriation, creates anxiety and panic that serve absolutely no purpose. That is what happens when the government moves too quickly, ignoring the scars of the past I talked about and showing a kind of disdain, or perhaps a lack of knowledge of history.
The minister insists that there will be consultations. The initial round of consultation is to take place between January 15 and March 29. We have just learned that there will be consultations. When farmers are on their land, working or preparing their fields, they do not have time to submit briefs on such short notice. The same goes for municipalities, most of which have newly elected councils. They are just beginning their debates and the implementation of their budget. The consultation period is very, very short. The format of consultation is also problematic. They want to host happy hours and to present the major components of the project online. Is that really consultation?
After that, the next step would be in the fall. There will be about nine months between the first part and the second part of the consultations, for a project that has been discussed for more than 10 years. We are in a situation where the saying “let us slow down to speed up” really applies.
I will not have time to go into the next point in detail, but I know my colleagues have already done so. A whole lot of provisions governing major projects and expropriations are completely set aside in Bill C‑15. That will allow this project to move forward much too quickly. The project itself is not fundamentally bad, but it is not always possible to do something quickly and do it well. This is a striking example of that.
The government is giving itself a lot of leeway, and that is why we have concerns about the upcoming bill. We fear it will be rushed through without any real consultation and that, in the end, the government will do exactly the opposite of what is in our motion, which is quite simple. It is about recognizing the trauma experienced by the people of Mirabel 50 years ago, apologizing to them, and ensuring that it never happens again.
