Debates of Feb. 5th, 2026

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe CPAC refers to this moment as the crown jewel of its weekly programming. Because it is Thursday, I am wondering if the government House leader can update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and into the next week.

I wonder specifically if the government has had the time to analyze and absorb the Conservative leader's letter calling for concrete, common-sense proposals to not only deal with the cost of living crisis but also strengthen Canada's position against things like unfair tariffs, ideas like getting rid of the capital gains tax on investments that are reinvested in Canada. I wonder if we will see legislation on that rather than a complicated rebate scheme that will see Canadian tax dollars go to subsidize the purchase of foreign-built EVs, and if we can expect any legislation that would include the Conservative idea of getting rid of the GST on all Canadian-produced vehicles. Those are the types of concrete measures that would not only lower the cost of living for Canadians but also help build our economy.

Will the government take us up on that offer as we extend our hands across the way for common-sense solutions, or will it once again double down on failed policies of the past?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot to digest. I think all Canadians will appreciate this metaphor at this time of year. If I hear the faint sound of the ice cracking in the wall of Conservative obstruction that this Parliament has encountered, the obstruction of our criminal law legislation, the obstruction of the Prime Minister's economic plan to bring $1 trillion of investment and to build Canada strong, if what I hear is the faint sound of that dam cracking, that means that spring might be on its way and the opposition may put down their tools of obstruction and join us in building our country strong.

In the meantime, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.

Tomorrow, we will have the debate on the Standing Orders and procedure pursuant to Standing Order 51, a very hotly awaited moment in the parliamentary calendar.

On Monday of next week, we will call Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, at second reading.

I would also like to inform all hon. members that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, tabled earlier this morning by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada.

Finally, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions on Friday, February 6, 2026, the House observe a moment of silence for the late Honourable Kirsty Duncan, and that afterwards, a member of each of the recognized parties, a member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Green Party each be permitted to make a statement for no more than five minutes to pay tribute, and that the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our Bloc Québécois colleagues want Canadians to believe that building a high-speed rail line will harm their communities, that it will be done without consultation and without the measures we have put in place over the past 60 years. They are trying to justify their opposition to high-speed rail and their goal is to kill the project before the legislation is even passed.

They have joined Conservatives in the past to try to cut the initial funding required, and they are trying to do it again today by blocking Bill C‑15. Indeed, their actions are quite fitting, given their name

I want to be clear. Expropriation remains a measure of last resort. Negotiating with landowners will always be the preferred approach. That principle will not change.

Before turning to Bill C-15, I want to acknowledge what we have heard in recent weeks. Since public consultations began, residents of the Mirabel region have raised concerns about land acquisition, expropriation and the need for direct, respectful engagement. We have heard those concerns clearly, and I can confirm today that Alto will be holding an in-person public session in the Mirabel area later this month, to ensure transparency, dialogue and accountability.

I want to explain why Bill C-15 is necessary for this linear project and how it is maintaining appropriate protections for landowners. Bill C-15 is necessary because the high-speed rail initiative is unprecedented in Canada. It involves a corridor of nearly 1,000 kilometres, crossing hundreds of communities and requiring the acquisition of hundreds of pieces of land. Because of the time, cost and complexity involved, land acquisition represents one of the most significant risks to the project, particularly if we are to begin construction in 2029, as announced.

The current federal Expropriation Act is a statute of general application. It was not designed for a project of this scale or this complexity. Without a framework adapted to this reality, delays multiply and costs escalate, precisely what communities and taxpayers want to avoid.

The land acquisition measures in Bill C-15 are not intended to increase uncertainty. They provide tools to help the government coordinate more effectively and get shovels in the ground faster while maintaining fundamental protections for property owners. Some of these measures have raised concerns, and I want to address them directly.

First, contrary to what has been said, expropriation does not take place over email. The intention is to allow communication by email only when the owner has indicated that this is their preferred method of communication and has provided their email address. This is an additional method of communication that supplements, rather than replaces, those provided for in the law.

Second, a prohibition on work does not mean that owners lose the use of their land. They will be able to continue their existing agricultural or commercial activities. Owners will also be able to carry out normal maintenance, repairs or work needed to keep their land from deteriorating.

Third, Bill C-15 does not prevent landlords from putting their buildings up for sale or allow the federal government to set land values.

The right of first refusal is a management tool that informs Alto when an owner is ready to sell. Owners remain completely free to put their property on the market. This tool simply allows Alto to acquire the property on a priority basis at a price previously agreed to by the owner.

The Government of Quebec has even given this power to the municipalities in recent years. It is called the right of first refusal. It allows cities to protect strategic or sensitive land without affecting the owner's property value. In my riding of Morin‑Heights, municipal council used this tool to acquire and protect one of the most beautiful pieces of land in the municipality. It is called Castel-Marie, and it is one of the municipality's most stunning parks. The tool works well for buyers and transferors. I can vouch for that.

We must also be honest with Canadians about what it takes to deliver projects of this magnitude.

High-speed rail is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in our history, a true nation-building initiative. Projects of this scale cannot be delivered without using adaptive tools. This project cannot advance responsibly without these land acquisition measures. Inaction would not preserve the status quo. It would mean delays and higher costs. Importantly, these measures are not unheard of. They are aligned with similar provincial regimes, including Quebec's act respecting expropriation and Ontario's Building Transit Faster Act.

The economic stakes are significant. High-speed rail will create tens of thousands of jobs, strengthen productivity, improve regional connectivity and deliver lasting economic benefits for Quebec, Ontario and Canada as a whole. Every year of delay carries real costs for workers, businesses, taxpayers and communities.

I support the construction of high-speed rail and Bill C-15. I am asking my Bloc Québécois colleagues to stop blocking the project and get on board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague. Indeed, a whole series of regulations has been established over the past 60 years. However, none of them did anything to prevent the tragic events that occurred in Mirabel in the 1980s.

Bill C-5 was passed last June. We have the ability to suspend laws and impose certain things. Furthermore, a proponent can sit down privately with a minister and, without consultation, the government can decide to circumvent the regular process. However, it seems to me that my colleague stood up to vote in favour of this measure.

How is it that today he seems to be ignoring the fact that we passed this bill and that it erases many of these fine regulations adopted over the past 60 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that what happened 57 years ago in Mirabel is unacceptable. Today is my birthday, and I am 56 years old. That means that what happened in Mirabel happened before I was born, but it is still unacceptable. It must be said that we have evolved over the past 60 years. Laws have changed. Protections are in place, and the government will respect them.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague is a member of Parliament for a region neighbouring Mirabel and knows the area very well, could he tell us what he is hearing in his riding in terms of support for the Alto project in the Lower Laurentians?

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

Mr. Speaker, in Les Pays-d'en-Haut, everyone I talk to about the high-speed rail project is very much in favour of it. We have been talking about it for far too long. The current government has decided to move forward. I think this is a big step forward in getting cars off the roads. It is a big step forward in creating jobs. It is a big step forward for public transportation.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate today, I hear two conversations: One is for an apology for past expropriations, and one is for the fast-tracking of a high-speed rail. To be honest, I did not know about these issues before today, but in doing some research, I am more interested in the process and the mechanics.

Can my colleague across the way answer whether the same mechanics, in terms of expropriation and land acquisition, will apply to a pipeline being fast-tracked and built to the west coast of British Columbia?

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about high-speed rail. I will leave pipelines to the experts in that domain.

I would just say that everything that has evolved in the last 60 years has brought us to where we are today. Too many people have talked about making a high-speed rail line. We are going ahead with a high-speed rail line, and we are going to do it in record speed. I hope our colleagues from across the way will pass Bill C-15 and get on the train with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton is asking me to wish my colleague from Les Pays-d'en-Haut a happy birthday, so I, too, am wishing him a happy birthday.

Now my colleague is asking us to get on board by passing Bill C-15 so that we can move faster. That is precisely why we are raising the red flag. We are saying that we must not rush this. In 1969, the government went way too fast, and ended up having to give back 85% of the land. Today, we are in a situation where the government wants to reserve a 100-kilometre-wide strip for a project that requires only 60 metres. We are afraid that history will repeat itself. That is what we are trying to explain to our colleagues.

I think that, with his sensitivity for Quebec, my colleague should convince his caucus to agree to apologize.

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

Mr. Speaker, the width of the corridor initially proposed is intended to prevent land speculation. It was not possible to set a minimum width, because the public has to be consulted.

We are going to consult the public to make sure we put the rail line in a location that is completely acceptable to everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, I am a new member, and I am extremely proud to represent the riding of Trois-Rivières, which, for the first time in decades, is fortunate to have a woman member representing it. Together, we are going to do some great things.

When I told my friends and family that I was considering going into politics, they told me that I would get eaten alive, that I was too conciliatory, too naive, that I only saw the good in people. Guess what? It is true that I approach things with a glass-half-full attitude, and it is true that I sometimes view things through rose-coloured glasses and think that there is always a solution, because at the end of the day, there is one fundamental thing that underpins all the work we do here in the House and that we should all be able to agree on, namely, civic duty. All 343 members of the House have the privilege of coming here every day to move things forward for all Canadians and to find solutions to the problems they face, regardless of the political stripe of the member who represents them.

As a 25-year veteran of the federal public service, I am non-partisan by nature and I get behind good ideas and good solutions, no matter who brings them forward. However, I have to say that my opposition party colleagues' political games and obstruction are starting to try my patience and good will. Here in the House and in committee, we bring concerns to the table. People agree that these concerns are important and that we need to talk about them. Then they say that what we are proposing is no good after all. When we point out that our proposal is what they asked us for, they say that it is no good and that they are concerned about something else entirely anyway.

We see that every day on everything from affordability to Criminal Code reforms to strengthen the justice system, as we saw yesterday. Today's motion by my colleague, the member for Mirabel, is yet another example of that. I find it irresponsible and deplorable for parliamentarians to completely ignore the facts and move a motion suggesting that the current framework is the same as what we had in 1969. Let me be clear: We recognize that what was done 57 years ago should never have happened. We recognize that the people of Mirabel were hit hard and still bear the scars. When the last of the expropriated acres were returned in 2019, the late minister of transport acknowledged that a big mistake had been made and that it should never have happened. My colleague, the hon. Minister of Transport, reiterated these comments this morning.

What I find unacceptable is trying to scare the citizens of Mirabel with statements that my colleague knows full well are not true. I know that my colleague is a diligent and well-informed person, that he has certainly read the budget implementation act, that he has certainly read the high-speed rail network legislation, and that he must be well aware that the Expropriation Act of 1985 has been radically amended to include consultation in the process. He surely knows that the high-speed rail legislation modernizes it and introduces additional measures. For his information and, above all, for the benefit of the people of Mirabel and all those around the corridor of this major project between Peterborough and Quebec City, I would like to reiterate some of the principles. Once adopted, if the obstruction stops, the legislation will guarantee consultation through impact assessment, support consultations with indigenous peoples and provide greater clarity on regulatory processes. In short, the project will not go ahead by overriding communities and landowners.

I will now speak for a few moments about the high-speed rail project. I know that my Bloc Québécois colleagues have been trying very hard since this morning to say that this is not the subject of the motion, but that is a bit like taking people for fools. We know that the Bloc Québécois and Conservative members have already voted together against the funding needed to launch this project.

Canada's first high-speed rail network is a transformative, generational project that will give Canadians the transportation system they deserve, one worthy of a G7 country. High-speed rail will generate approximately $35 billion a year in economic benefits and create more than 51,000 jobs by increasing productivity and improving mobility between regions. High-speed rail will quickly connect economic hubs, boost tourism, cut travel times in half, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate the development of affordable housing along the Toronto-Quebec City corridor, and provide jobs for those along the route, including in rural communities. These communities need those jobs and need this economic boost.

It is important for the regions, it is important for the people of Trois‑Rivières, and I know it is also important for the people of the neighbouring riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

Under our new government's new buy Canadian policy, Alto will use hundreds of thousands of tonnes of Canadian steel, wood and concrete to build the high-speed rail line, along with structures, facilities and electrical infrastructure. In fact, Alto and its partner, Cadence, have begun talks with the Canadian steel industry to better understand what it can provide and how we can help it provide what is needed.

Few infrastructure projects in Canadian history have generated this much industrial demand. Attempting to block this is kind of irresponsible. I am speaking to both opposition parties through the Chair. This is one of a series of major projects that our new government has promised to build, projects like the port of Contrecoeur and housing and other investments we will be making in the north.

Canada is facing ongoing U.S. threats against the steel, wood and aluminum sectors, so it is time to stop playing political games and put the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers first. As a matter of fact, 76% of Quebeckers are in favour of the project.

The first stages of the consultation process for Alto are now just starting, and Mirabel is included. Consultations will also be held in the riding of Trois-Rivières and in the riding of my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé in the coming weeks. These consultations will take place in more than 100 communities along the corridor. There will be discussions with municipalities and undertakings with potentially affected landowners. There have been many discussions with the Union des producteurs agricoles, round tables on various topics with stakeholders, open houses and an online portal, which has already received more than 26,000 submissions.

Let me be clear: The experiences of the residents of Mirabel in 1969 constitute a historic injustice. We acknowledge that it should not have happened. However, the process has changed radically over the past 57 years. It changed radically when the Expropriation Act was amended in 1985. It will change radically once we pass the bill that is currently before Parliament, Bill C‑15, which includes the railway right of way legislation.

We have worked very closely with Ontario and Quebec to draw inspiration from the expropriation laws in those provinces so that we can be as aligned as possible with the provinces and move forward as quickly as possible with a very productive program.

High-speed rail can be built without repeating the mistakes of the past. This is an important project for Quebeckers and for the people of Ontario as well. It is an important project for Canadians. It promises nothing but benefits. All project stakeholders have agreed to consult each other and ensure that the project delivers as many positive benefits as possible.

If my colleague is interested in helping his constituents, I strongly encourage him to focus his energy in constructive ways by supporting the measures we propose to make life more affordable, to build more housing, to preserve our social safety net and to build Canada strong, rather than persist in filibustering during parliamentary committees and here in the House of Commons.

When I got into politics, my goal was to help people. I really felt that we would be able to work together, hand in hand with the parties, at such a crucial time in Canada's history, a pivotal moment in our lives and in the lives of our businesses and workers, as well as the lives of Quebec families and Canadian families, who live in uncertainty.

Let us stop playing political games, work together and move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for mentioning me in it. She is my riding neighbour and normally I really like her, and I still do today, but I have to correct some of the things that she said. She is accusing us playing political games and engaging in obstruction, which is absolutely not what we are doing.

What we are calling for is what she mentioned in her speech. We want the government to acknowledge past mistakes and commit to not repeating them. The Liberals have been saying that all day, so they should agree with it. As for the high-speed rail project, we have said repeatedly that we support it. We just want it to be done right.

When we think of Mirabel, where 85% of the expropriations had to be cancelled afterwards, and when we think about the current project, where the government wants to keep a 100-kilometre corridor open when it only needs 60 metres for the project, we feel concerned. That is only natural.

There has been talk about laws, and I also like those laws. Under section 98, approval must be obtained from the Canadian Transportation Agency. That is one of the existing protections. However, Bill C-15 will do away with that. My colleague needs to reconsider part of her speech. I would like her to share her thoughts on the Canadian Transportation Agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much like working with him too.

I would just like to correct something. The current corridor that Alto and Cadence have put forward is a 10-kilometre-wide corridor, not 100-kilometre.

I am coming back to what I said earlier in my speech. People say no, that is not what we want to talk about, we do not want to block the project, but that is exactly what it is. That is what I mean when I talk about political games.

They say they do not want to block anything, but in fact they are blocking things. They are blocking things by talking about other things. They are blocking things by talking about something that is so emotional that we cannot say anything against it. So that is really what I mean when I talk about political games.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is actually along the same lines as my colleague from the Bloc's. In her speech, the member referenced lessons learned from the past, and that a consultation is part of the expropriation process. However, I read and hear, right in my office, about the farmland potentially being expropriated in Clearview Township for DND's project. Consultations occurred, but they were right in the heart of harvest season for the farmers who are so affected. How is that effective consultation?

All parties support strengthening Canada's defence, but how is taking 4,000 acres of prime farmland and consulting with farmers in the middle of harvest season appropriate?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, consultations have already begun. Even though construction is expected to start in four years, consultations have already begun. They were held in Montreal and will continue. The door is already open. The approach is that, even though we do not have all the information yet, we have already begun consultations to understand the different communities along the route, what they expect, what they want and what matters to them. Consultations have also begun.

I encourage my colleagues to speak with the farmers in their ridings. I have. I have spoken with representatives of the UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles. They have begun to be consulted. Discussions are already under way.

I encourage you to get informed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member needs to address her questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague, the member for Trois‑Rivières, hears when she is out and about in her riding. How are people responding when she talks about the Alto project, especially since one of the stations will be in Trois-Rivières?

[An hon. member]

That is a very good question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people of Trois-Rivières are very excited about this project happening at long last.

This project will enable people to get from Trois-Rivières to Quebec City and Montreal much more quickly. It will provide eco-friendly transportation and enable people to get around without cars. Trois‑Rivières has a university and three CEGEPs. This will really bring incredible economic growth to our region.

When I talk to people, everything they have to say is positive. They cannot wait for it to get under way. They are very excited to get this project started as soon as possible.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think this is a first for me in the House, but I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

I would also like to thank Emily Gough, who has been part of my team over the past few months, as the parliamentary interns will soon be leaving. I am extremely grateful to her for her contribution. I think many of us can attest to her hard work. I wish her the best of luck in her new position.

Expropriation is a complex process that requires exceptional tact. It is a process that cannot be done by cutting corners. My region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, felt this very strongly in recent years.

I am thinking of the Osisko project in Malartic in the early 2010s. In a church in 2006, the Osisko company presented an ambitious plan for a larger open-pit mine. It was the beginning of a process that would lead to the relocation of 205 residences, and it was not an easy process. In fact, my father served on the transitional committee, acting as a mediator in the process.

Compensation began three years later. However, there were many challenges. The negotiated settlement strategies caused a great deal of stress for many of the citizens affected. Relocation began even before the project was approved by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

For many of the municipality's citizens, this was very traumatic.

Mr. Speaker, could you ask people in the room to shout more quietly? I know it is directed at someone in particular, but it is loud.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Yes, I am going to ask for order in the House.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, for many residents of the municipality, this was a deeply traumatizing chapter. The cohabitation guide went a long way toward improving the social climate. Still, when the company proposed this major project, one that would revitalize the municipality, it tore the community apart. At such times, standing in opposition takes courage because, in small municipalities where everyone knows everyone, one feels like a target.

Something similar happened again recently. While the people of Rouyn-Noranda were waiting for the results of the ministerial authorization in March 2023, residents and even the mayor all learned simultaneously that the neighbourhood near the Horne Smelter would become a buffer zone. Once again, 200 families were affected by the news. Uncertainty affects the people there people to this day.

Yes, compensation is paid in these situations, but it is not necessarily enough to meet the needs of the people affected. That requires negotiations, but above all, it requires time, empathy and compassion.

That is one of the reasons why, in 2022, the Université du Québec en Abitibi—Témiscamingue, or UQAT, took the lead in creating the Laboratoire sur l'acceptabilité sociale de l'exploitation des ressources naturelles, a laboratory focused on the social acceptability of natural resource development. It brings together researchers, organizations and members of the public who collaborate on developing social acceptance mechanisms that respect the concerns and interests of the various parties involved. In our region, it involved taking a step toward improving dialogue so that we could identify mechanisms better suited to today's reality. An expropriation process, where people are presented with a decision made in advance, no longer works. People want to have their say. I hope that UQAT's example will serve as inspiration to the government.

I was the indigenous relations critic for a long time. The consultation process that the government put in place for Bill C‑5 was deplorable. The government sent a letter and then said that it had consulted with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The government basically gave five days' notice then said that the consultation had been done. However, consultation does not necessarily mean agreeing with a project. It is not just a matter of saying that someone has been heard. It involves actively participating in discussions, trying to understand each other's points of view, trying to find solutions together to address everyone's concerns and reaching out to each other.

That is precisely what the people of Mirabel are asking for: to have their say. They want to feel heard, to be able to share their concerns and to get answers. They do not want to find out from the media or in a coffee shop that the high-speed rail project is going to pass by their homes or through their farmland.

Moving fast with this kind of project never works. The current government wants to override every law. It wants to steamroll people and move very quickly. We know what that leads to: IT contracts with skyrocketing costs. It leads to projects that fail miserably. All this happens because, instead of doing things right, they want to rush—at the speed of a high-speed train.

Since I am now the critic for agriculture and agri-food, I will echo the words of Marcel Papin, president of the Lanaudière section of the UPA, who said that everything is moving too fast, and no one is taking the time to answer the real questions. That is exactly the mistake that is being made in most major projects, both in my region and here today.

Farmers have significant concerns. Guillaume Alary, a farmer and president of the UPA of L'Assomption-Les Moulins, points out that the government does not need to expropriate land to break up a farm, it simply needs to split the farm up. Stéphane Alary, president of the Outaouais and Laurentians regional section of the UPA, said that agricultural land is often chosen first because it costs less for the developer. He also questions the idea of splitting up land, asking, “How will producers get their hay? They're not going to put a footbridge over every piece of land that's cut off.” That much is clear.

That is precisely where agricultural producers need to be reassured. The government needs to consult with them, listen to their concerns and meet with them. Sure, it can send a registered letter or an email, but the decent thing to do is to go and meet with people and talk to them.

Alternative solutions will have to be found to allow them to access their lands. It is also important to recall that many people still remember the expropriations of 1969. Some of them will experience a second time what farmers of that era experienced, that is, the expropriation of their land only to have it returned later. One local farmer told the Mirabel newspaper Le Nord that many farmers he knows were able to reclaim old lots and short strips but then resold them, because there was the possibility of a second expropriation. Another farmer told Le Nord that, if we are as important as the government claims we are, why is Alto not holding real public consultations in Mirabel? That is a good question.

Examples from my region have made it very clear. A mining company that takes responsibility and engages in discourse with the public is more likely to obtain social licence. That certainly takes time, but it is always the best approach.

The same farmer also added an interesting comment, noting that by giving this project to a federally created firm, the Liberals seem to want to wash their hands of it. That is problematic. These stories from agricultural producers deserve to be heard. Today, I spoke on their behalf. I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois is listening to them. We are here to help them. Major projects require us to do things right. We are not dealing with a parcel of land; we are dealing with people who have put their hearts into their land. They have made it their home, their community.

Farming is a generational story, from father to son. This land represents a family history. Six to 10 generations of hard-working people took care of a piece of land in that part of Quebec, the Mirabel region. It is often said that the Mirabel region is home to the best farmland in Quebec, the most fertile land in Quebec.

In closing, I would like to remind the House of the great Serge Bouchard. While acknowledging that modern humans wanted to live in cities, he spoke with admiration of the old farmer, the one who cleared the land, who loved and walked the land. As he said so well, the land is what makes the ancestor culturally unique. We need to think of them in this process as well.