Debates of Feb. 5th, 2026

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

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the honour and the sensitivity of my colleague on the other side of the House. I say that with all sincerity. I think he spoke from the heart, and we felt that very clearly.

Having said that, I believe that he may have misunderstood or at least misrepresented the scope of the consultations Alto is undertaking, which are just getting under way. Apparently, some 26,000 people have already had the opportunity to give their opinion. Over the coming weeks, consultations will be taking place at various times and in several cities, including in Quebec City on February 11 and 12.

How can anyone say that high-speed rail is being built without consultation?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it was without consultation, I said that it was with so-called consultation sessions, because these are actually information and promotion sessions for a project. They are sessions to promote a project, and people are not getting time to prepare briefs and familiarize themselves with the files.

Right now in Canada, I would say that we are witnessing something shocking that has never happened before. High finance has seized the reins of the federal government, with its sole interest being economic gain. That is why good projects or great projects can sometimes end badly, because human rights are not being taken into consideration.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

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.

Can my colleague explain how the 44 Liberal members from Quebec across the way can vote against the wording of this motion?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my experience as a parliamentarian leads me to believe that if the Quebeckers sitting on the government benches vote against this motion, it is because they are being forced to toe the party line. That is why I tell the people I meet in Quebec that if they want to be defended and have their voices heard in the legislature that is the House of Commons, they would be much better off counting on us, because the Quebeckers in the Liberal Party are wilfully blind, deaf and mute.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our motion is as follows:

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.

Those are the terms of today's debate. I think it is important to repeat them so that we know what we are debating, and also because, so far, a number of individuals who have spoken have not addressed the subject or have decided to talk about another subject. I can see a link between the subject at hand and the government's much-touted high-speed rail project. There are plans for it to pass through Mirabel, and there are plans for expropriations. That is precisely why it is so relevant to address this issue.

I think it is a shame that the Liberal members who have spoken so far seem to be in some kind of denial. There is a matter before us. They are being asked to apologize to the people of Mirabel for the nightmare they went through in the 1960s, and they are not addressing the issue. That is the matter currently before us. That is what we are discussing. I find it sad.

As we have said several times so far, we feel that this is a way to wipe the slate clean and end the debate. The government wants to be able to tell the people of Mirabel that it wants to run another project through Mirabel while they still bear the scars of the past. Before going any further and doing it again, the government should restore a bond of trust by apologizing for what happened.

That is the least it could do. That is the issue we ran with today. We want to discuss it. So far, Liberal members have barely managed to mention the expropriations that took place in Mirabel in the 1960s. They are skimming over the subject for now. I find that sad, and I hope that, by the end of this debate, there will be some progress based on what we have heard today. I hope that they will be able to vote on the issue and even support the motion. I do not think there is a single Quebecker—apart from perhaps the prime minister who caused this nightmare or his son—who could say that what happened was a good thing.

In this context, I do not understand how a government could decide, despite everything, to vote against the motion. In my opinion, the only thing that could explain that is some kind of arrogance or pride. The Liberals may think to themselves that it was a Liberal government that did this, and Liberals cannot do anything wrong or crooked, as if Liberals did only good things. The government could then stay in denial. That would be sad, because this is a historic opportunity to heal some of the wounds that still exist. I think it would be an honourable and worthwhile thing to do. In our hearts and minds, each of us should be asking ourselves these questions as we hold this debate.

I want to say a little more about what the people of Quebec went through. I think everyone in Quebec stands in solidarity with what the people of Mirabel went through back then. I think it is worth taking a look at what happened and providing some context.

On March 27, 1969, there was a shocking announcement: Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government intended to seize 97,000 acres of farmland upon which houses were built. People lived there; families lived there. Fourteen Quebec municipalities were affected. The 97,000 acres of farmland covered more square kilometres than the city of Montreal. People had big ambitions for the future airport. The vision was monumental. Eventually, it became clear that it made no sense, which is what everyone said at the time: It was so huge that it made no sense. Nevertheless, out of sheer obstinacy and perhaps, once again, hubris, the government refused to acknowledge that the vision was far too ambitious for what was needed. Those 97,000 acres were home to 3,000 families. Those 3,000 families lost their homes and were deported. They were exiled from their homes.

According to estimates, these 3,000 families were made up of more than 10,000 people. I find that horrific, and I think that everyone in Quebec finds what happened back then horrific, too. Today, the government has a great opportunity to take up this issue and lay it to rest. It has the opportunity to apologize and admit that it made a mistake which resulted in major problems. These expropriations caused tragedy, left land scorched and homes burned down, and led to people being thrown out of their homes by police.

The airport opened in 1975. The supreme irony is that 10 years later, in about 1985, the government started returning the land to the owners after realizing that it had expropriated too much. The thing is, it did not give back just one or two properties; it gave back 85% of the expropriated properties. That is outrageous. It later turned out that 85% of the expropriations had been unnecessary.

Today, I understand why the people of Mirabel are shocked when they hear the word “expropriation”. Trust cannot be built by telling people to get out of the way, in the name of modernity and progress, and telling them that you know what you are doing, when, in the end, 85% of the expropriated land was surplus to requirements. That does not build trust.

On top of that, this Liberal government is saying that it has no reason to apologize, but that we can trust it because everything will be done differently this time. I am really having a hard time understanding this. As someone who does not even live in Mirabel, I am not sure I would be able to trust the government. I do not trust anyone who has such a paternalistic attitude toward the public, when they are incapable of acknowledging their mistakes and apologizing for them.

I will continue my story. To date, 85% of the expropriated lots have quietly been returned. On September 15, 1997, all international flights ceased. Around 20 years after it opened, Mirabel airport stopped accommodating international flights. The government's colossal project had amounted to pretty much nothing. Everyone started talking about a white elephant. This is a permanent stain on the history of Canada, the history of Quebec, because Quebeckers are the ones who experienced it, and primarily the history of Mirabel, but also the history of the Liberal Party, it must be said.

That is not all. On October 31, 2004, commercial flights were ended. There were no more commercial flights to Vancouver or anywhere else. It was over. The airport was shut down. Worse still, in the same year, on January 1, 2004, the government went so far as to rename Dorval Airport after Trudeau, even though he was the one who expropriated the people of Mirabel. The other airport was renamed in his honour. It makes no sense, but that is Liberal arrogance.

I am truly sad because, at the time of the 50th anniversary, the Quebec National Assembly formally called on the federal government to apologize. The Quebec National Assembly called for this, it is not just the Bloc Québécois that did so. However, the Bloc Québécois also called for this because it represents the voice of Quebec, and as such it tabled a motion before the government in 2019. What was the government's response? It said no. It is unbelievable, and yet this shows how this federation, particularly the Liberal Party, generally treats Quebec: in a patronizing and paternalistic way. Then they wonder why some people want to separate. The Liberals cannot even comprehend this, because they are so right that they cannot be wrong.

Once again, they have an opportunity today to redeem themselves. They have an opportunity to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. I am reaching out to them. I invite the government to reflect on Bill C‑15, in which it gives itself extraordinary powers to circumvent the normal expropriation process. I invite the government to consider Bill C‑5, which has been passed and which allows the government to circumvent all the environmental legislation to implement major projects. What is the point of these laws if the government ultimately decides to amend them or not enforce or abide by them? It makes no sense. I think the Liberal Party needs to start thinking about this. I think now is the right time to do that.

I look forward to answering my colleagues' questions.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to commend my colleague and the other members who have risen for speaking plainly and with great sensitivity. We must indeed acknowledge the mistakes of the past. However, it is now 2026, and we have learned from those mistakes. There are now ways of doing things with sound, established consultation processes.

Rather than saying that there is no consultation, does my colleague not believe that we should instead encourage our constituents to participate in this important consultation exercise?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing about the consultations is that they are more like information sessions. That is the first thing. They put up kiosks and sell the project. It is not really about listening to people and taking notes. That is not really it. It is a one-way relationship where they are selling a product.

The other thing I want to note is that the people of Mirabel were surprised to see that they were not included in the planned consultations, even though most of the route in Quebec between Montreal and Ottawa passes through Mirabel. They were not included in Alto's consultations, even though they were the ones whose land was expropriated, who suffered at the hands of the federal government in 1969 and who have lived with this their entire lives.

I think Alto has made amends by announcing that it will hold consultations in Mirabel after all. However, the government cannot claim to be perfect now after the new mistakes it has just made.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has indeed expropriated people's lands. In my riding, people are concerned about the Cowichan decision. Perhaps it is not just the federal government that wants the right to take away land.

What does my colleague think about these things, which are happening again and again?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question. The government always says that it is there to protect citizens' interests, that it wants to do the right thing and that we should listen to it and trust it. However, when we look back at the past, particularly Ottawa's past, we see that, most of the time, the government acts in its own interest. The good of the people sometimes takes a back seat, especially when we are talking about people in offices hundreds or thousands of kilometres away who are making decisions without going out to talk to people on the ground and find out what they really want.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are reaching out and calling for cross-party co-operation today.

Given that the next two speakers are Liberal members from Quebec, here is the question that we are all asking ourselves right now: Does my colleague believe that these Liberal members will really address the wording and the subject of the motion, or does he think that they will instead try to avoid the subject, thereby proving that the 44 Liberal members from Quebec hold absolutely no sway within their own political party?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal members from Quebec decide to vote against this motion when the time comes, it will be very apparent that they are of absolutely no use in Ottawa.

That will show that sending members of the Liberal Party of Canada to Ottawa to represent Quebec means sending representatives who will take their orders from Ottawa, Toronto or the Prime Minister and who will have no say in decisions involving Quebec's interests.

I think the challenge is to show how useful it is to vote Liberal.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, reading this motion, I do not think a single Quebecker would be able to vote against it, except perhaps 44 of them. According to my colleague, which 44 Quebeckers would vote against this motion?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to name the 44 ridings, but I hope that those 44 will do some soul-searching. If they need to break party ranks to defend Quebec, then so be it.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie.

I rise today with great respect, because we are talking about a chapter that has had a profound impact on thousands of Quebeckers. The Mirabel expropriations are part of history. Lives were turned upside down, families were displaced, communities were torn apart and people had to leave their homes, their neighbours, sometimes their jobs and give up part of their identity. Yes, there is collective trauma. Yes, there is pain that takes time to heal. Even though former transportation minister Garneau apologized, we still need to be able to talk about the situation with dignity today.

I also want to explain why this issue is personal to me. I was born on a farm on Patriotes Road in Saint-Ours. Farming plays a central role in my life. In 1958, my grandparents, the Poitevin-Bourgeois family, were awarded the title of Quebec's farm family of the year. Their successors, the Préfontaine-Bourgeois family, who I am also related to, received the same award in 2018. Mine is a story of family, succession and landowners. I have a deep understanding of the value of a farm. I understand that a piece of land is not just an asset. There is a history there, a legacy. That land represents the work of several generations.

I also understand that our farmers are already facing serious challenges related to climate change, technological and digital innovation, food security, workforce and family succession. The last thing our farmers need is another source of uncertainty, so we need to be responsible in how we conduct this debate. There is a difference between recognizing a historical injustice and using that injustice to fearmonger today. There is a difference between learning from the past and remaining stuck in the past.

We cannot change what happened in Mirabel in 1969, but we have a collective responsibility to learn from it and ensure that it does not happen again. That is precisely why Canada's framework for expropriation and major projects has been completely overhauled. At the time, land was seized without warning, without consultation, without the possibility of appeal. That would no longer happen today.

The current system is based on clear and modern principles: public consultation, mandatory notices, the possibility of appeal, and fair compensation. These principles are enshrined in law and they align with the systems in Quebec and Ontario. The very reason they exist is to prevent situations like the one in Mirabel from happening again.

The heart of today's debate is not to determine whether these principles exist. It is to recognize that they are already at the heart of our modern legal framework and that they must be rigorously applied. That is part of the motion. Public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation are not political slogans. They are legal requirements designed to protect citizens, municipalities, farmers, and affected communities.

First, meaningful public consultation is a legal requirement. It is not optional. It involves mandatory notices, structured consultations held early in the process, with accessible information and meaningful opportunities for citizens, municipalities and the agricultural community to voice their concerns. That is what we are doing right now with the high-speed train project.

Second, social licence is recognized as a condition for success, not an obstacle to get around. Any project that goes ahead against the will of a community will fail, resulting in delays, costs and loss of trust. The current framework is designed to prevent that.

Third, protecting farmland is an integral part of project assessments. Farmland is an asset that benefits society as a whole. The current rules require consideration of farmland's economic, social and strategic value. I would add that, nowadays, we all recognize how very important farmland is to our sovereignty.

Fourth, compensation mechanisms are set out in the act: independent appraisals, the right to object and compensation based on fair market value. Every piece of farmland represents a life, and these mechanisms exist to ensure justice, transparency and dignity.

I also want to be very clear: Liberal members from the northern suburbs are in touch with the City of Mirabel and with Mayor Roxane Thérien and her teams.

The mayor and I had a great conversation about Alto and the consultation process last week. We are committed to keeping this dialogue going and to talking about what we need to do together to ensure that this project meets the needs of her region, her city and, of course, the regional county municipality or RCM.

We are listening to members of the public and working with municipalities to come up with practical solutions. This approach is already being used in our region. After extensive consultations with Connexion Laurentides and the seven RCMs, the Laurentides region has been working since last December to position itself as an experimentation and innovation hub for transportation and a community with everything to offer. The Minister of Transport came to our region to speak directly with elected officials, economic stakeholders and local partners. This approach, which involves consultation, collaboration and building with the region, is exactly what people expect from us.

Our role as members of Parliament is to listen, consult and take prompt action to address people's concerns and to seize economic development opportunities. I am ready to work with every member from the region and the member for Mirabel to make that happen.

I will conclude by saying that, yes, Mirabel is part of our collective memory, and yes, what happened was a historical injustice. However, respect does not mean exploiting trauma to play politics. Respect means protecting Canadians today and building the future for tomorrow.

We have made our choice: We will build the future with clear rules, with people and for future generations. The good news is that we are already on the ground. I encourage the member for Mirabel and other members from the region to come work with us to find solutions.

I am asking a clear question: When will my Bloc Québécois colleagues stop using the trauma of what happened in Mirabel as a political tool and choose to work with us to support the economic interests of Quebec and the development of the Lower Laurentians and other regions, with respect for the people, farmers and communities?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite, because she is not really answering the question being asked. She somewhat acknowledges that the expropriations in Mirabel in 1969 were a mistake, but she still refuses to apologize, which seems to be her government's position.

Normally, elected officials are supposed to set an example. I have children, two daughters, aged three and two, and right now I am teaching them to apologize when they do something wrong.

What does my colleague think I should tell my daughters when grown-ups make mistakes, when they do bad things and they refuse to apologize? What kind of example does that set for our children?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the best way to apologize is to take action and to work with people on the ground. It is about building trust and working together. We acknowledge the pain caused by things that were done in the past. Of course, we must not repeat them.

The laws have changed, and it is 2026. We are ready to listen to the people once again, to be on the ground, to have the discussions that are necessary to ensure that this is a project with a future for them, for the region, for our beautiful Quebec and for the rest of Canada.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: The wrongs have been acknowledged, that has been said, but what meaningful steps will be taken on the ground to ensure that citizens feel respected and listened to?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank my colleague for the question.

We are still working on the ground, meeting with our mayors in the region. When I say that, I am not just talking about myself, but about Liberal members from across the region who are active on the ground. It is about meeting with businesses and farmers to listen to what should not be done, to ensure that Alto respects the process and that people are really being listened to. We are working hard to report back on these issues, and we are doing so on an ongoing basis. The high-speed rail is there to innovate transportation in the region, and we want to work to ensure that our local businesses benefit from it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only question we want answered today is this: What will determine whether my colleague votes for or against the wording of the motion we are introducing today?

All we are asking is that she vote on the wording of the motion itself, on the words used in it.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say at this stage is I recognize the pain and the stories from the past. The motion will be put to a vote next week, so we will be able to make the decision collectively.

In the meantime, obviously we can use the scars of the past that have caused so much suffering, but the Bloc Québécois must also bring a strong voice to the table to say that this project is important for the region and for people, that the government is prepared to engage in a consultation process, and that the Bloc Québécois is prepared to work with it to ensure that this project is flawless and can offer many benefits while respecting people's dignity.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the topic we are discussing today, because I think it highlights the Liberals' arrogance in the fact that they can just choose to build a project in northern, not even very northern, Quebec. Today it is kind of a white elephant; there is not a lot going on, but it was overriding all the local interests at the time.

I am wondering if the hon. member will acknowledge that the project in Mirabel has been a total disaster.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as I mentioned in my speech, what happened is not acceptable. However, this has evolved through regulation, which has changed. We have a process now that ensures that the voices of citizens and the voices of municipalities are heard.

No decision has been made up until now, and we need to listen and consult. More importantly, we are already on the ground, talking to all the stakeholders to make sure we will have a process and a project that will build our region and build Canada.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this important issue. I think that we are basically dealing with two things here: what has happened in the past and what we want to do for the future. There are four related issues I would like to address. I will start with the issue of public consultations. Let us look at what happened in the past versus what is happening now.

For the past few days and weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to convince us that there will be no public consultations and no environmental assessments for the high-speed rail project. I would invite them to visit Alto's website, the company leading the project, since public consultations have already begun. People can attend in person, by video conference or online. The idea that there will be no public consultation, that the past predicts the future, is false. That is absolutely false.

With regard to the issue of environmental assessment, I would humbly suggest that I have likely participated in more public hearings on the environment than any other member of this House ever has. Whether with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement in Quebec, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada or the Canada Energy Regulator, I have participated in dozens and dozens of assessment sessions on various projects in Quebec and across Canada throughout my career. As environment minister, I defended the Impact Assessment Act all the way to the Supreme Court, so if anyone here is concerned about and very interested in these issues, it is me.

There will be an impact assessment. It has already been started by the high-speed rail consortium. I am among those who think that this is an excellent project in terms of both the economy and jobs, and, of course, in terms of the environment and the fight against climate change. It will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My colleagues probably know that transportation accounts for 25% of our greenhouse gas emissions. One-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions comes from the transportation sector. By 2040 or thereabouts, 24 million people will travel this corridor. It will be one of the busiest corridors in the country. It already is, but it will be even busier, as we heard a little earlier from my colleague, the Minister of Transport, not to mention ground transportation by car and air transportation, as we have often seen. This a very important solution for reducing both air and ground traffic, but also for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Earlier we heard the Minister of Transport say that the late Marc Garneau, former transport minister in 2019, had apologized to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel. I am not sure where the Bloc Québécois was at the time. There was compensation. The Bloc Québécois is using old political tactics. We have seen it all before. Their tactic is to muddy the waters. They being up what happened a little over 50 years ago. The government handled things terribly, everyone recognizes that. The Minister of Transport acknowledged it here in the House earlier today. My colleague acknowledged it. We all acknowledge it. That is not the way to do things, and it is not the way things are done now.

At some point, I want to hear the members of the Bloc Québécois on whether they agree with this project. It is very complicated to follow their logic. They are neither for nor against. In fact, quite the contrary. That is more or less the position of the Bloc Québécois on this project. It is one of the most promising projects in the fight against climate change. It is one of the most promising projects of Canada's history in the area of transportation. It will greatly benefit thousands of people, hundreds of businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, as well as in Bloc ridings. I find it completely hard to believe that the Bloc Québécois is being so divisive with this project when it could be playing a constructive role. Honestly, I do not understand the position of the Bloc Québécois. I am very puzzled and very disappointed by the fearmongering campaign of the Bloc Québécois. In fact, they could be working with us, working with the municipalities, working with businesses and working with farmers.

People are bringing up farmers a lot. When I was at Équiterre, an organization I co-founded, farming and sustainable agriculture were one of our main causes. For many years, we ran a program called the Family Farmers Network. The network included more than 130 firms supplying food to 50,000 people.

We fought for land protection. We led a campaign on the issue of farmland protection and the Commission de protection du territoire agricole, Quebec's farmland protection commission. That cause is setting a precedent today in terms of farmland protection.

This issue is very important to me, and we obviously want to minimize the impact this project will have. Even though it is a good project, it will have an impact nonetheless, in part on farmland. Discussions have already begun.

It is true that we want to speed up the schedule. There is no hiding that, there is no doubt about it. Why do we want to speed up the schedule? I am one of those who believe that we can conduct good public consultations. They have already begun. We do not necessarily need a decade to carry out good environmental studies and good impact assessments.

I was the environment minister, so I know very well what I am talking about. The proposed process can work if everyone pulls together, which does not seem to be the case with the Bloc Québécois so far. For all these reasons, I am very much in favour of the high-speed rail project.

We have also acknowledged the wrongs of the past with regard to expropriations. In the case of high-speed rail, we are talking about a fraction of the land that was expropriated for the Mirabel airport. It is not 1% or 0.5%, it is far less. However, the Bloc Québécois is waging this campaign of fear among residents and farmers, and I find that extremely shameful.

I invite the Bloc Québécois to follow our example. Of course, we must learn from the past, and that is what we are doing, but we must also look to the future. On this side of the House of Commons, we are firmly focused on the future, on one of the most promising and important projects in the history of our country.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support the high-speed rail project. I wanted to make that clear to the former minister. That has always been our position.

With respect to the matter before us today, I would like the member opposite to explain to me what is so divisive about our motion. The motion calls for an official apology from the government. No such apology has ever been offered. It calls on the government to acknowledge the collective trauma that the 1969 expropriations caused. It also urges the government not to do that kind of thing again and to ensure that there are proper public consultations, social licence and appropriate compensation, which the government is apparently committed to doing.

I would therefore like the member to explain to me what is so divisive about our motion. Will he vote for or against the motion?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois would have us believe that everything it has said about the high-speed train project is included in today's motion. That, however, is far from the case.

Social media is full of public comments by various Bloc Québécois representatives talking about high-speed rail in apocalyptic terms. Today's debate is limited to this Bloc Québécois motion, but the Bloc Québécois's actions over the past few weeks regarding this project are the antithesis of a healthy, constructive debate to move this project forward.