Debates of Feb. 5th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Apology to Those Whose Land Was Expropriated in Mirabel

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would like to remind the member that questions must be asked through the Chair.

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my dear colleague from Quebec that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for this project. It is not because the project will pass directly through Hull—Aylmer. Unfortunately, it will not, as much as we would like that. In our community, we are preparing a proposal for a tramway in Gatineau.

What is more, this tramway is a project that I have been working on since I was elected in 2015. I proposed it because I knew that a tramway was a modern way to transport people and provide a public transit system. We already know that our roads are too congested.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege for me to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to the important motion moved by the member for Mirabel.

From what I understand, the Government of Canada fully recognizes that Canadians have concerns about expropriation. There is a reason why we have been talking about this all day. We also recognize the harm caused to the many families whose farms were expropriated in 1969 to build the Montreal-Mirabel International Airport. Such action should never have been taken and must never happen again.

I was born in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. I heard about this when I was very young, and I am very aware of the hurt it caused in the community. However, today, we are in a different place, and we believe that the community, the Government of Canada and our institutions have learned that this is not how things are done today.

I would therefore like to assure the House that these considerations are taken very seriously and that the expropriation regime has undergone major changes over the past 57 years. However, what concerns me today and what has prompted me to speak is the fact that our Bloc Québécois colleagues have been tight-lipped about their support for the high-speed rail project and that their action could prevent it from moving forward.

There is also a lot of disinformation, and disinformation is plaguing our organizations, our teams and our communities. It is important to provide our constituents with accurate information, and today, I do not believe that we have the full picture of what the Alto project will look like and how it will unfold.

Just this afternoon, I heard a Bloc Québécois colleague say that because the Alto project was included in Bill C-5, there would be no consultation and it would be exempt from the various regulations. I would like to state that this is simply not true. There is a real consultation process under way and a real impact assessment process that will take place. There are consultations to build social licence.

The motion, which I have here in front of me, refers to the importance of not undertaking expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation. That is precisely what we are putting in place. It is an organized, structured process based on fundamental values in which market value, eligible costs, and guarantees that the affected parties are treated fairly and consistently are respected. They have the right to negotiate. They even have the right to go to federal court if they are not satisfied with the settlements. We are no longer in the same place.

When applying the procedure, the government exercises caution and due diligence. As the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, I believe that things will be done, and done well. However, I also want to ensure that our colleagues understand that we will preserve the fundamental protections that safeguard property owners' rights by ensuring a fair, consistent, and respectful process for all involved.

The Bloc Québécois claims that the high-speed rail corridor, which is 60 meters wide, will cause the same historical injustices suffered by the citizens of Mirabel. That is not true. That is not fair either. The footprint of this project represents less than 1% of the area covered by the Mirabel airport. The project will include a rigorous consultation process and, as I mentioned earlier, environmental assessments that are only possible with the passage of the high-speed rail network act.

Contrary to the Bloc's assertions, this bill therefore requires that the impact assessment process apply to all segments of the project. This includes extensive consultations in Mirabel and along the entire route, including in the riding where I was born, Berthier—Maskinongé.

This process complements the consultations that were just launched by Alto. We know that Alto will be holding consultations in more than 100 communities, working with elected officials, holding public information sessions, and communicating regularly with people along the route. As well, not only do the vast majority of Quebeckers support high-speed rail, but so does the Government of Quebec.

Our high-speed rail network act is based on discussions with the Government of Quebec and is modelled on Quebec's expropriation law.

The Bloc Québécois's fear campaign against our high-speed rail legislation would not protect Canadians. Instead, it would derail the project, putting at risk more than 50,000 jobs, up to $35 billion in GDP, and a unique industrial opportunity for Canada's steel, forestry and construction industries.

The Bloc Québécois's approach also jeopardizes emissions reductions equivalent to taking 100,000 cars off our roads. It puts at risk lucrative contracts for local businesses in rural communities all along the route. It compromises this opportunity to show the world that Canadians have the drive, the ingenuity and the expertise to get big projects built.

The Prime Minister has been clear. We must build the transformative projects needed to better connect Canada, grow our economy and support our workers. I am deeply concerned about the disinformation and fear campaign orchestrated by the Bloc Québécois, targeting Quebeckers from Quebec City to Montreal, Laval and everywhere in between, in order to derail the promise of high-speed rail.

We know that in order to successfully build a high-speed train, we need to avoid the mistakes of the past. Our high-speed rail legislation does exactly that. I encourage the Bloc Québécois to stop playing political games, listen to Quebeckers and stop abandon its mission to derail the high-speed rail project.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge two of my colleagues, Caroline Mireault and Daniel Tessier, who are celebrating their 10th year of service in the riding. These people support us, and they are also the ones who field comments from constituents who see projects like this coming and wonder, for example, why there is no consultation in their town.

Representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles de Lanaudière came out and said, “We certainly do not intend to let a scenario like the one in Mirabel happen again.” These are agricultural producers saying this.

I am wondering why my colleague is not prepared to accept our request today, to apologize for what happened in Mirabel and to ensure that there will be adequate consultations, which is clearly not the case according to the people on the ground.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize what happened and the devastating impact that the expropriation in Mirabel had in the 1960s and 1970s.

However, when people today relate that example to high-speed rail, they are preventing us from achieving our objective of promoting, but also of creating a major project that will reduce our greenhouse gases resulting from transportation.

We are open to consultation. There will be a truly rigorous consultation process where things will be written down, documented and reported. Early consultations are already taking place, but we need to formalize the project to enable more formal and meaningful consultations.

Of course, the people at the UPA will be part of those consultations.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the potentially devastating effects of expropriation, and in her speech she spoke about fairness and respect.

I could not help but notice that she has afforded none of that in her fanatical drive to steal firearms from law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I wonder, with police associations rejecting her gun grab, would she apologize to them today?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the direction this discussion is taking.

In fact, more than 70% of the population across Canada supports the bill. A great deal of respect is being shown in this process. Compensation is offered precisely because the owners of the firearms that are now banned purchased them in good faith, as legal gun owners. That is why they will be compensated. I believe respect is being shown.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I fully support what my colleague is saying, even though that is not what we are talking about today. She has my full support and the support of all my colleagues here.

Let us come back to today's topic, which is high-speed rail. Like my colleague, I, too, am an engineer and, as such, I can say that a project like this one is complex. It takes time to get everything in order. We are being accused of moving too quickly, but does my colleague think that completing the studies within four years is moving too quickly?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians want us to move quickly. This is not a time to dilly-dally.

If we work together as a society and as a community, we are capable of conducting proper, meaningful and respectful consultations where we listen to each other. We are capable of defining how we want to carry out this project and obtaining reparations if necessary to find solutions.

Even though this project is very technologically complex and will require a lot of land, I think it is a good thing. Four years is not too long. We have been waiting for this for 30 years.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech, just as I have been listening to all of our colleagues' speeches for a while now, but there is something that I do not understand.

Our motion is written in three parts. Regarding the apology to the those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel, the Liberals tell us that it has been done and that they agree with it. As for acknowledging the trauma, they tell us that it has been done and that they agree with it. As for not undertaking such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation, they tell us that that is fine and that they are already doing that.

Why are they not voting in favour of the motion if they agree with everything?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me to determine how the vote will go next week. However, all throughout the debate, in everything that we have seen in the House, and in discussions outside the House and on social media, the Bloc members are implying that we are an irresponsible government and that this project is trampling over everyone and disregards the rights of farmers, when that is absolutely not the case.

That is why we have been hearing my Liberal colleagues trying all day to set the record straight: This is a good project for Quebeckers and for Canadians, and we need to work together to make it happen.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was my turn to give a speech. If I had known, I would not have fought to ask a question so quickly. I would have saved a few punches for my speech. In any case, I will be repeating some of what I said.

I am pleased to rise in the House now to speak to the motion we are moving on our opposition day today. I will read the text, which has three parts:

That the House call on the government to apologize to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel, to acknowledge the collective trauma these expropriations caused for thousands of Quebeckers who were forced to abandon their homes, their communities and their livelihoods, and to urge the government not to undertake such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation.

I might have personally added something else. Now I am not proposing an amendment today, but if I had a fourth point to add, it would be this: To remove Pierre Elliott Trudeau's name from the Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, which is our gateway to the world, and give it to the Mirabel airport, so it would be renamed the Mirabel-Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport. Why not give the name of a complete failure to a monument that is just as much of a failure? It seems to me that this would be more appropriate, since he was the one responsible for the mess in 1969. It would also reflect his function as usurper, as well as his role in completely disrespecting people's rights. This is the same man who, in October 1970, locked up poets and free thinkers without a warrant. That is the point I would have added. I am just throwing that out there to my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I am hearing some discussions. Can we ask members to take their discussions outside?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Indeed, if members want to have side conversations, they can leave. We must have some order.

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Quite often, the questions we get later on come from the people who did not listen. Then they ask us about things that we repeated about 15 times during our speech.

Before I continue, I should mention that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

Now let us briefly discuss a few points. We know that the proposed route, even though it is not final, will result in the expropriation of land belonging to Mirabel families who, in many cases, are still affected by the brutal expropriations that took place during the construction of Mirabel Airport in 1969. We are talking about more than 3,000 families whose land was expropriated, and the government did not even use all of the expropriated land. Some are seeing their former properties taken away a second time. Most of these people had to leave the region and uproot themselves to rebuild their lives elsewhere.

Despite its direct responsibility, Ottawa has never been willing to apologize to the people of Mirabel. There have been apologies outside of Parliament, it is true. The late Marc Garneau, may he rest in peace, offered one in 2019, outside the House. However, there has never been an institutional apology from the House to those whose lives were completely turned upside down.

The government is presenting the consultation process as a gesture of courtesy. It is in no way related to citizens' grievances. The government is saying that a public consultation is under way. However, new dates are supposed to be scheduled in Mirabel. Do we have those dates yet? I do not know. If someone across the aisle has the answer, I would be very open to hearing it during questions and comments.

One of the things we have heard repeatedly in the speeches so far is that things have to move quickly. Things always have to move quickly. They have to move very quickly. That is exactly what happened in 1969. Things moved too quickly for something that was not worth it, for a project that was a blatant failure and for which we are still paying the price today. There are still families who have been affected by this.

Sometimes people tell us that all that is in the past, that it is history. We heard that when we proposed our motion on the events of October 1970 back in 2020. We heard it last week when we asked questions about the Prime Minister's speech on the Plains of Abraham. We were told that we were living in the past. What interests them are jobs, the economy, social services, Canadians' rights and so on. However, they are the ones who chose to give a speech on history. They talk about history, pick it up and dust it off when it suits them, but the last thing they want is for us to talk about it.

I asked my colleague from Saint-Jean a trick question earlier. I asked her what would happen if, in her former life as a lawyer, someone had come into her office and said he or she had been the victim of some situation or other some years back, only to have my colleague tell that person to stop living in the past and move on. She answered that she would have been disbarred. The same is true here, in this case.

There is something else we often hear as well. We are told that over the past 60 years, an entire consultation system has been built. In Quebec, there is the well-known Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, which does exceptional work. A whole consultation framework has been established, which means projects can no longer simply be imposed or pushed through while ignoring people's wishes.

Let us not forget that during the last week of the parliamentary session in June—when people were suffering through a heat wave, when the bravest among them were still firing up the barbecue or heading to the pool, and when almost no one was interested in politics while we here were suffocating in our jackets and ties—we were hit by a super closure motion to ram through a bill allowing numerous laws to be suspended, including, in some cases, provisions of the Criminal Code, and giving developers the ability to sit down in a minister's office and push through a project without having to obtain the public's approval. That was Bill C‑5, which was passed with the support of the official opposition, who supported not only the bill itself, but also the super closure motion. Now we are being told that we life needs to move fast, and we are going to fast-track the need to fast-track. That is exactly what happened at that time, when political attention was at its lowest.

That is not acceptable to us. No, that does nothing to reassure us. We will certainly not take comfort in the fact that Bill C‑15, the 2025 budget implementation bill, will allow the government, and Alto by extension, to circumvent the provisions of the Expropriation Act.

It is incorrect to say that the federal law is the same as the Quebec law, because several provisions of the Quebec law, including the right to challenge and the compensation mechanism, are not the same. It is obvious that the hasty expropriations and the interprovincial nature of the project will allow Ottawa to circumvent Quebec's laws and regulations by bringing the issues under federal jurisdiction. Quebec does not have exclusive jurisdiction when the project is not entirely within its borders.

Earlier, we were told about disinformation coming from the Bloc Québécois. I heard a lot more disinformation from the other side when they claimed that the Bloc Québécois is against the high-speed train, which is a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Social licence for projects also means taking into account the experiences of local populations and their socio-historical relationship to the land, whether they are Quebeckers or indigenous people.

I am from Saint‑Hyacinthe, but I am rising this evening to talk about Mirabel because it concerns Quebec, and what happens in one corner of Quebec affects Quebec as a whole. Since Ottawa has given itself disproportionate powers under Bill C-5 and Bill C-15, we do not want the feds to repeat the Mirabel fiasco in other projects.

What we are doing today with our opposition day motion is not just correcting a mistake from the past, because it can never be corrected. It is not just to protect the people of Mirabel, but to protect all Quebeckers. If Ottawa was able to traumatize an entire region in 1969 without the carte blanche it now has because of Bill C-5 and will soon have because of Bill C-15, imagine what it will be able to do when this comes into effect.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I am a new member of the House and I have not experienced closure. However, I was here when it was very hot. I would like to know the date of the closure. There is another thing I would like to know. There is a lot of talk about Bill C-5. I listened to my lovely colleague's speech until the end. I did not hear that this project was included in Bill C-5.

I would therefore like my colleague to enlighten me, because he is saying things that are not true, and what worries me is precisely the disinformation that is being spread here.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, June 13 was the date of the closure debate. We are checking whether the member voted on it. We will give her the answer in a minute. My colleagues can whisper the answer to me. As far as Bill C-5 is concerned, it definitely does not mention Mirabel or the high-speed rail. It does not talk about the projects themselves, but it offers the ability to assume the powers to carry them out.

Do we know how our colleague voted? No. We will tell her that in a minute.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have noticed that the Liberal government is always very quick to apologize. It makes me wonder why the government suddenly seems so incredibly reluctant to apologize for something that we know full well should never have happened.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what fascinates me. The government has been telling us for a while now that apologies were already given, that it is unacceptable and that it must not be minimized. If true, it would not cost the Liberals much at all to vote for the motion if they think it makes no difference.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this. What is his reaction to the public concern underlying our motion?

People are afraid that their property will be stolen out from under them and that their rights will be violated. How does my colleague respond to the fact that we are being attacked, here in the House, for raising public concerns? We are being accused of spreading disinformation and resorting to petty politics.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy answer. So far, the only political games and disinformation I have seen have come from the members accusing us of doing everything we can to block high-speed rail, especially when those members are champions of oil subsidies who are now lecturing us about the environment.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on National Defence. We have a great relationship.

I would just like to toss the ball back to him and quickly point out that the French term for “fast track” is voie rapide.

I am very pleased that the Bloc Québécois supports high-speed rail. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that four years—for consultations, engineering work and everything else— is too fast to implement a project of this scale.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank him for correcting me, just as I corrected him earlier. That is a very fair thing to do. I really enjoy working with him too. I would like to throw the ball back to him along with the compliment.

I gave incorrect information earlier, and I apologize. It was June 16, not June 13. The member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville had voted in favour.

Now, to get back to the question, I admit I was distracted, and I am sorry. I understand that the question was mainly about the importance of major projects. Does that sum it up correctly?

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Is four years too long?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Is four years too long? It depends on the project. For some, it is.

For example, in the Quebec City region, there is still talk of a third link. The governing party is in the midst of a leadership race. Not all projects are structured in the same way. Not all projects require the same speed or the same level of verification. Not all projects are of the same scope either.

A high-speed train that would cross a huge swath of the country is not something that can be taken lightly. I cannot emphasize this enough: We must be careful with the broad powers and blank cheque granted to the government in the legislative framework that has already been adopted or is about to be voted on and that will allow such measures to be imposed.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is progress? In my opinion, that means moving forward as a society toward the common good.

Was Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Mirabel Airport project a step in the right direction at the end of the 1960s? No, because the plan for an airport of the future fell through, but also and especially because it was rushed. With the massive expropriations carried out by the federal government in Mirabel, leaving 10,000 people displaced, 3,000 families uprooted, and 97,000 acres of land expropriated when less than 15,000 acres were needed, the project did not lead to progress. It created human tragedies. Hastiness is not conducive to progress.

I have another example, which goes back even further. It is for my western colleagues. The Canadian Pacific Railway was also built quite quickly. Thousands of immigrants came from all over the world, and they did the work in abusive conditions, in mediocre living conditions. Fifteen thousand Chinese workers laboured on a project that ultimately injured and killed them. Six hundred people died during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hastiness is not conducive to progress.

When I was a journalist, I did a few news stories on the people in Mirabel whose land was expropriated to mark the 60th anniversary. I remember the testimonies I gathered, and I saw first-hand that the scars were still there. I saw that these human tragedies—when someone is uprooted from their home, when their land is taken from them, even if they are compensated afterward—leave lasting marks. It was the 1960s, a time when, in the name of progress, everything had to move so fast that no one bothered with the human beings who were in the way.

Then along comes Bill C‑5, adopted under a closure motion in June, and now Bill C‑15, which is still being debated in the House, and once again we find ourselves in a climate of haste. The high‑speed rail project has been on the table since the 1980s. This government has been in power since 2015 without making much progress on it. Now, suddenly, it has to be done, and done quickly and forcefully. Rushing as a strategy is dangerous and counterproductive.

Let us look at how this Liberal government intends to proceed with Bill C‑15. Among other things, this bill “enacts the high-speed rail network act”. To help people watching understand, it would have been possible to build high-speed rail network earlier, in the old world, before Mr. Trump and the current rush. However, certain rules had to be followed, rules that surely exist for good reason, such as ensuring that people's individual rights are protected.

What is the purpose of the high-speed rail network act? Its purpose is to speed up projects. That is the government's direction. However, when people move faster, they take more risks, and when they take more risks, the risk of injustices increases. In our constituency offices, we all receive calls from citizens who are victims of injustices, who call us because their employment insurance cheque has not arrived, because their old age pension cheque did not come in, because their passport was lost. These things happen. The public service makes mistakes; the government makes mistakes. If we decide to move even faster, we increase the chances of error. I spent 10 years in legal aid trying to correct injustices committed against citizens.

Bill C-15 allows things to move even faster, thereby increasing the risk of error. What we are essentially saying is let us take the time to do things right. Let us make sure that real progress is made, because we are in favour of the high-speed rail project. However, let us make sure that real progress is being made and that we do not create a host of human tragedies.

So what does this legislation say? It says, among other things, that Alto will not be required to get approval from the Canadian Transportation Agency. The Canadian Transportation Agency was probably useless anyway. That is probably why it was created. It was meant to be useless and slow down business. That is why, today, we no longer need the approval of the Canadian Transportation Agency. I am sure that all the people who have worked at the Canadian Transportation Agency and who were appointed to it by this government feel that they have served no purpose all these years.

When Alto submits proposals for the high-speed train route, they will be deemed approved by the agency, which raises the risk of errors and injustice.

Furthermore, Bill C-15 grants Alto significant powers in terms of expropriation and the right of first refusal to speed up construction of the high-speed rail line. How it will basically work is that land is going to be expropriated now and assessed later. Alto will be able to expropriate land within a corridor 10 kilometres wide. That seems like a lot to us. It is not playing political games to say that the people of Mirabel are concerned. It brings back memories of Mirabel in the 1960s, when 97,000 acres were expropriated when only 15 were needed.

Alto will be allowed to expropriate land now and do the environmental assessment later. Will that speed things up? Of course it will. However, what will end up happening is that after expropriation and assessment, the conclusion may be that the route should not pass through there because the impacts are too great. People will have already been expropriated, and Alto will end up with land that it does not need. This brings back memories, and that is what members on the other side do not seem to understand.

Another Liberal innovation is public hearings. Sections 9 and 10 of the Expropriation Act require the responsible minister to hold public hearings on a proposed expropriation in the event of opposition. However, Bill C‑15 will exempt Alto from holding this public hearing and will also exempt it from having to obtain the consent of cabinet in order to decide to expropriate. Will this speed things up? Of course it will. Does it increase the risk of error and injustice? Yes.

Next, there are work prohibitions. That is worth noting. Once Alto has expropriated land, it will be able to request a prohibition on work. We are concerned about this, and some citizens are concerned as well. Suppose I live in the 10‑kilometre‑wide corridor—10 kilometres is wide—and I have work to do on my property, or I need to invest in my farm business or something else. With a work prohibition, I cannot. It prevents a lot of activities from being undertaken. That is the problem with this initiative. We are told that things will be imposed and sped up, but there are people who will suffer injustices and who will be unable to take steps to develop their property.

Furthermore, apparently, all that can obviously be done by email, which it is also faster. We could use a bailiff, because when we need a serious thing done, we send in a bailiff. Once again, however, it is more complicated and more expensive, but it provides assurance that people were served their documents by hand. Here, however, people are going to receive notice of their eviction by email. That just shows how seriously we take the process.

We are very sorry to dampen the Liberals' enthusiasm for high-speed rail. We like the idea of high-speed rail too, but we cannot bring ourselves to applaud along with them and dismiss the very legitimate concerns of people on the ground, who were told the news.

We are told that consultations are in progress. What we are seeing are happy hours and immersive experiences. They tell us that they want to make it festive. It may appear that way, but the lack of sensitivity is glaring. Finally, our motion today is simply to say that things need to be done the right way to prevent human tragedies. That is how progress is achieved, and that is how we move forward as a society toward the common good.