Debates of Feb. 5th, 2026

Build Canada Homes Act

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Preventing Coercion of Persons Not Seeking Medical Assistance in Dying Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying — protection against coercion).

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling an act to prevent coercion of persons who are not seeking medical assistance in dying: to stand with people with disabilities, veterans, the elderly and all people who have faced or are at risk of facing pressure and coercion with respect to a medically facilitated death. As I do so, I want to honour the memory of Clemens von Galen. His heroic defence of the most vulnerable people, especially in fighting involuntary euthanasia, is my example.

The new bill would prevent government bureaucrats from pushing a medically facilitated death on people who are not asking for it. It would not apply to doctors and nurses, nor in any case where the patient or client has sought the information.

However, Canadians with disabilities, veterans, the elderly and people living in poverty do not want government bureaucrats telling them, when they are trying to access unrelated government services, that they should die. Canadian law envisioned that these sensitive conversations would happen between a medical expert and a willing patient, not between a bureaucrat and a citizen who is not interested, yet bureaucrats have pushed medically facilitated death on unwilling citizens again and again. This bill would have absolutely no effect on individuals who are seeking a medically facilitated death; it is for those who are not.

This is a common-sense reform that would fill a gap in the law. I hope all my colleagues will get behind it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand, please.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

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

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

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to take people back to March 27, 1961, the day when Mirabel supposedly entered the modern world, the day when 14 municipalities and towns were dismantled. That day, the federal government delivered 3,126 expropriation notices and took possession of 97,000 acres of land. According to estimate, these expropriations affected between 1,700 and 3,000 families.

At that time, Sainte-Scholastique and Sainte-Monique ceased to exist and Saint-Augustin, Saint-Benoît, Saint-Canut, Saint-Hermas, Saint-Janvier, Saint-Jérusalem, Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides, Sainte-Sophie, Saint-Placide, Saint-André-d'Argenteuil, Lachute and Sainte-Thérèse-Ouest were also affected.

The people affected by this were fathers, mothers, children, uncles, aunts, farmers, teachers, agronomists and mechanics. On March 27, 1969, these 10,000 people all become the expropriated people of Mirabel, a label and an identity that will follow them their whole lives.

Following the announcement, the federal government went to Sainte-Scholastique. There, federal minister Jean Marchand announced between 75,000 and 100,000 jobs, a windfall of jobs that never materialized, or at least not on a permanent basis.

We were promised modernity. Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to Mirabel and promised us that we would be stepping into the modern world with all the good things that came with that. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau left the room, people did not feel reassured because their questions had not been answered, and yet the question they were asking were very simple. They wanted to know when they would have to leave, how much money they would get and how they would be paid. They wanted to know whether they would have to go work in a shop in Montreal and where their children would go to school. These were real questions that went unanswered at the time, even though they were entirely legitimate.

The people of my riding eventually came together in the early 1970s to defend the expropriated. They founded the CIAC, the Centre d'information et d'action communautaire. Members will recall Jean‑Paul Raymond and Rita Léonard‑Lafond, who passed away last fall and to whom I paid tribute in the House. They are heroes for defending the expropriated. However, even as a group, they never managed to find out why the area expropriated was so large, so unnecessarily large, so aggressively large.

We now know that Ottawa knew it was over-expropriating and that it was a land grab. Ottawa must have known. We now know that it knew, but it was obvious. In Mirabel, 97,000 acres of land were expropriated. I would like Quebeckers to understand that what the federal government stole was the equivalent of the island of Laval. I would like my friends in the rest of Canada to know that the area taken from Mirabel was three and a half times the city of Vancouver, nearly two thirds of the city of Toronto today or half of the city of Edmonton. I hope that people understand that everyone back home knew that it was theft and that it was unreasonable.

What was expropriated was 20 times the size of New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, 33 times the size of London's Heathrow, 25 times the size of today's Vancouver Airport, and 25 times the size of Los Angeles Airport. It was, as I said, a theft, and a theft without fair compensation. Back home, when compensation was given, those with the right political connections were worth more than ordinary folks, as the parish priest used to say, and the offers were not negotiable. The federal appraisers were accommodating. Since they did not actually need all that land to build the airport, people lived in limbo. Some, once expropriated, became tenants in their own homes. In fact, many did, unable to clear their land or improve their farms. They lived day to day, barely getting by, waiting for the moment when some official from Ottawa would knock on their door and tell them to leave, maybe even burning the house down, as they had seen happen to the homes of their neighbours and their children's friends. This was in a farming community where families live close together, where a father, to leave a house and land for his children, would build a new house across the road. That is what happened in Mirabel.

While people were being kept on as tenants in their own homes, they had to ask the federal government for permission to do anything, such as replacing the roof, building a barn, even painting a wall. There are stories of people who had to ask officials for permission just to put up wallpaper in the kitchen. They were required to ask the federal government for approval to paint their little girl's bedroom pink, and the officials would tell them they would prefer it to be blue or white. That was the level of psychological abuse that the victims of the federal government's expropriation powers were subjected to.

This federal government acquired those lands at bargain prices. We have examples, documented by historians. There is the example of Françoise Drapeau-Monette, who is listening to us today, and who was offered $1,000 for a 20‑foot by 20‑foot parcel of land, while the price in the region was over $3,000, according to independent appraisers. The federal government was paying for an airport and needed one-twentieth of what it was taking from humble Canadians at a 70% discount. History shows that if a landowner had the audacity to want to negotiate a price, federal appraisers would come back and threaten them with lower prices. For the sake of speeding things up, for the sake of a project that we were told was transformational, for the sake of bringing in modernity, the government wanted to force the people back home to accept the first offer. Things had to move quickly.

There are also reports of cases like that of Ernest Courcelle, who was offered $40,000 for his land. He wanted to negotiate the price, so the federal government showed up at his door one morning and told him that if he did not agree today, if he did not sign today, it would be $10,000 tomorrow. These cases are not made up, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them. In short, dozens of public servants came to steal Mirabel, an act that is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, not to mention arbitrary.

There is the example of the Rhéaume brothers, whose lands and homes were identical, built by the same people in the same year, and which were across from each other. One brother was offered $63,000 for his land and the other brother was offered $133,000 for his land. It was non-negotiable, otherwise the offers would be reduced. This reminds us of an unfortunate economic reality. During an expropriation, when the people whose land is being expropriated are not protected by laws and when those laws are weakened, it is the buyer who sets the price and it is the buyer who has the upper hand.

Today we are talking about access to home ownership, a recurring theme in the House. In Mirabel, in the 1970s, the recurring theme was properties that were being stolen, purchased at bargain basement prices, from people who had many children, who were well-established in their communities, who had a reputation in the agricultural community. They were in fact unable to find alternative housing with the amounts they were being offered, and that was when they knew when they had to move out. Government appraisers acknowledged, and this is true, that this was unfair. However, they went so far as to shirk their responsibilities by pointing out that the people—who sometimes became tenants on their own land, in some cases for 18 years—had gotten a good deal on their rent from the federal government. Why were they complaining? They were able to rent their land and the federal government was such a good landlord. That tragedy is still being felt to this day.

Unlike similar lots in Quebec, some of these remain uncultivated woodlands because tenant farmers were unable to invest in clearing them. Some of Quebec's most fertile land today remains uncultivated woodland because those people were denied the right to invest. Some were tenants on their own land for two decades. They never received any compensation for the improvements they had to make to their land to earn a living.

These people are no strangers to tragedy. They have scars. In some cases, the land had been farmed for generations, and the woman had inherited the land but her husband had heart problems. He did not have it in him to fight the federal government, and his wife did not want to blow through her inheritance. There were cases of depression, suicide, domestic violence, illness, displacement and tarnished reputations. In the farming community, reputations are built over generations. All of that was destroyed in our community, for no reason.

If I were to go see my friend Éric Couvrette, as we walked toward his father's maple grove at the top of the hill, he would point to where his friend's house once stood and say that the federal government burned it down for evacuation drills, and then point to where his aunt's house once stood.

Then, walking towards the boundary, which ends in a cul-de-sac because there is an airport fence at the other end, there is a neighbour who is concerned about the quality of his water because of the chemicals that were used to burn down houses. He does not believe that the Montreal airports authority, or Aéroports de Montréal, is being transparent about its water analyses. This is my daily life as the representative for Mirabel.

When questioned by the Standing Committee on Finance this week, the Minister of Transport acknowledged that the federal government may have made “mistakes”. I strongly emphasize the word “mistakes”. Opened in 1975, the airport closed its doors to the public 30 years later, after much agony and three decades of broken lives. Three decades of broken lives is not nothing.

Of course, some land was returned. Brian Mulroney's government, apparently looking for government efficiencies, felt that it made no more sense for the federal government to own this land than for it to own Petro-Canada. It began to transfer land. It returned more than 80,000 acres. When entering the Union des producteurs agricoles building in Sainte-Scholastique, there is a portrait of Brian Mulroney on the wall. Not only do these people remember the bad, they also remember the good.

This continued under the Harper government because it kept 11,000 acres in case the airport were to expand. Other lands were returned and finally the last parcels of land were returned last year. There were five left, so the wound is still fairly raw. We have a duty to remember the people who were expropriated who are watching at home today, as well as those who are no longer with us but whose sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters are still around. The federal industry minister is one such person.

Battles were fought and lands were returned, but there has never been an apology. I think that these people deserve an apology from the federal government so that they can get closure. That is what the Quebec National Assembly unanimously called for in 2019 on the 50th anniversary of the expropriation. I also moved a motion to this effect last year, which was sponsored with the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. It was a motion without notice that the Liberal Party refused to have tabled, but it is never too late to do the right thing.

That is what revived the high-speed rail project. That is where it all started. Today, we are not talking about a train, but about justice. When we bring up what happened, the Minister of Transport tells me that I am dredging up the past to try to scare people. Can he blame people in my community for still being afraid? The people of Mirabel are people you can talk to. They are really compassionate people. They are people who are capable of listening and thinking, and I am sure they are capable of forgiving, but can anyone really blame them for their lack of confidence in the federal government after the hell they have experienced?

In the wake of those events, Canada adopted modern expropriation rules. It took its time, of course, but it got the job done, and now there is fairer compensation, the right to be listened to, the right to appeal and the right to be heard by a hearing officer before a minister can determine the value of the land. At the time, the government justified what it did in 1969, 1970 and 1971 on the grounds that nothing great would ever be done in Canada again without expropriation. It told us this awful treatment was necessary and that the project had to get done faster. People's lives were destroyed for decades just to speed up a project by a few months or a year.

There is a duty of reconciliation. It was all kind of personal for the former prime minister, and I understand that. It was a family thing. It was partly his father's legacy, in whose honour they renamed the Dorval airport, where people can at least watch planes fly. They say this is a new government. I want to believe them, but governments are judged by their actions.

People often talk about the financial cost of major projects. We are told that these projects are expensive, that they need to be fast-tracked and that they are generational investments. That may be true. In the case of the high-speed train project that reopened old wounds in my community, we believe it is a generational project, but there is very little mention of the human costs, of people being uprooted, of shattered lives. Very little is said about the impact, the scars it leaves. These scars are deeply human. It is the humble role of a private member to bring that humanity to the House and to make the House understand that Mirabel is today a place of remembrance for Quebec and for Canada. It reminds us, as we often say, that this could have happened to each and every one of us. It could have happened in each of our ridings. It could have happened in any one of our towns, and it could happen again.

The government has apologized many times. Prime Minister Trudeau apologized to many people and groups for mistakes made and crimes that should not have been committed, and rightly so. We agreed on that.

In Mirabel, every time a prime minister rises, makes amends and apologizes on behalf of the Crown to someone else while neglecting us, it reopens old wounds once again. While it will not heal them, I think that today we can come full circle historically by asking the government to apologize and not do it again.

I am sure that the government will be willing to do that, and I will be the first to invite it to my riding for that purpose. Where I come from, we are welcoming people.

Apologies put a stop to indifference. They show an openness to understanding, because unless people spend time with our constituents, they will not understand them. Apologies are like arms ready to open to people who have known nothing in life but pain, struggle, closed doors and politicians who make them feel invisible. Above all else, an apology is an acknowledgement of dignity. Apologizing, admitting to mistakes and starting fresh is one of the first lessons in civility that we teach our children. It is that important. Apologizing is part of life. We often forget that people asking for apologies are people waiting to offer forgiveness. They are people deeply motivated to prevent a 50-year battle from turning into a 100-year battle. People who demand an apology are people with no desire to fight just for the sake of fighting.

If this House or this government refuses to apologize to the people of Mirabel, they are not only refusing them an apology, they are depriving them of the opportunity to offer forgiveness in return. As the member for Mirabel, it is my profound belief that this is not the government's intention.

[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, it is important to acknowledge that the expropriations in Mirabel are part of our history. We need to understand what it means to have lives disrupted, families displaced and communities torn apart. I was born on a farm, so I am familiar with the agricultural community. I do know what it means to have a farm.

That being said, the laws have changed. Public consultations are held. It is a legal requirement. Social licence is required, and yes, the process will be respectful.

I met with the mayor of Mirabel. I met with farmers. I met with citizens. Yes, we will do the right thing. The Bloc needs to stop obstructing a major project for our region. Bloc members must realize that the region wants to take an innovative approach to transportation. The high-speed train is a perfect example of this. With that in mind, I wonder whether our Bloc friends will stop obstructing this project and show up to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for the question.

At the beginning of her question, I saw a sensitivity in her that we are not used to seeing. We know how she treated the people at Paccar. We know how she treats those people. I guess she is making progress.

It should be noted that 20 minutes after the member posted an article on Facebook about her meeting with the mayor of Mirabel that the mayor herself posted a video on Facebook where she said that for the time being, there was still no public buy-in for the project.

However, that is not what we are talking about today. Today, we are talking about something very noble and humble: apologizing. The member tells us that the federal government will not do it again. I want to believe her. I want to believe her good faith. I think that the first step to ensuring that this does not happen again is simply to acknowledge past mistakes and finally allow these people to move on.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Mirabel on his speech and thank him because it is a speech filled with compassion for the people of his riding. He is right to say that, whether working on Parliament Hill or in their riding, elected members are there to represent the people who elected them. I therefore offer my colleague my heartfelt congratulations.

My colleague was not an MP when all of this happened. He was very young at the time. He said in his speech that everything that happened in Mirabel was an absolute nightmare for many people at the time. Some apologies have been made by successive governments, both Conservative and Liberal.

I would like to know what additional apologies he expects for his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, some land was indeed returned. Some was returned in the 1980s under the Mulroney government. Others were returned under the Harper government. The final expropriated plots of land were even returned under the Trudeau government. It was a long process, but throughout it all, the federal government never acknowledged that it was anything more than an administrative error.

What the people of Mirabel expect is an apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Canada. They want us to recognize that what happened in Mirabel was a crime and that it must never happen again.

Once again, the Conservative Party has often been very open and understanding of the people of Mirabel. I think that we have almost finished the marathon today. There is only one step left to take, and I am convinced that the House will have the compassion needed to make it happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. In all honesty, it is one of the best speeches I have heard in my six and a half years as a member of Parliament. I am very proud of him.

We have just learned that the Liberals have shown their true colours through the member for Thérèse-De Blainville. They will try to use 40-year-old slogans about the Bloc Québécois rather than apologize to the people who are asking for an apology.

Can my colleague, with the eloquence he is known for, explain to the Liberals what we are talking about today so that they understand once and for all that what is being presented in the House today is much more important than petty slogans and political games?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to today's debate. I see the Minister of Transport here. I see other members here. During my speech, I saw members from Quebec who were nearly in tears listening to me. I refuse to believe that the government's position can be summed up by the crude, callous remarks of the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

Things can get a little heated in committee with the Minister of Transport. However, we have had conversations. We have spoken in the hallways and gotten to know each other. I know he is a sensible man. I know he is a sensitive man. I know he is capable of this, and I am sure that he will recommend that his government move on to something else, so that we never have to talk about this again.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are sensitive to people's concerns, and we are taking action. I just want to mention that, with regard to Paccar, we have been taking action since October. We are working with the management team. Our Minister of Industry and her office are working on this. I am working on this. We did not need the Bloc Québécois to tell us that we needed to start working on this. We have been taking action since October, and solutions are in sight.

In that context, we know how to manage the House. One does not write to the Minister of Finance when they should be writing to the Minister of Industry. Furthermore, we do not base our work on social media. We work with people on the ground. We listen to them and take action with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am the Bloc Québécois finance critic. I talk to the Minister of Finance. It is certainly not my first instinct to talk to the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville, who is not a minister of anything. When I went to see the people at Paccar, guess what? I talked to them. I shook their hands. We were out there on the ground.

Changing the subject is what someone does when they are uncomfortable with today's debate. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville is changing the subject. I encourage her to reflect on the history of Mirabel, I encourage her to learn more, and I encourage her to perhaps rethink her attitude.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very impassioned speech. Obviously, our colleague cares very much about the subject and the constituents in his riding.

I am keenly aware of the Mirabel situation, being a Quebecker myself and having been born in Montreal, but I want to highlight once again that it was Brian Mulroney, a Canadian prime minister who, in his very first term, returned 80% of those lands. It was another Canadian prime minister in his first term, Stephen Harper, who made restitution with the other 11,000 acres, which were returned to the rightful owners. In between, we have had numerous years of Liberal governments that have totally ignored the subject. I am kind of taken aback by the member from the Liberal Party who is trying to change the subject and not deal with the issue at hand.

I would ask the member this simple question: Why does he think the Liberals have totally ignored this issue, which is a very important issue for the people of Mirabel and, indeed, the people of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is clearly demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue. Last year, I myself moved a motion without notice alongside the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. This is not partisan. Of course, the Conservative Party—both progressive conservative and conservative—has been particularly sensitive to our concerns in the past. We are grateful to them, and we are capable of saying so.

I do not want to harp on what the Liberals did not do in the past, because today, they have an opportunity to take a step forward. This is an olive branch. We are reaching out to them. I think that was clear in my speech. I think my words have been clear. We are reaching out to them, and we hope with all our hearts that this motion will be adopted so that we never have to move it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish all my colleagues in the House a good morning. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government, for myself, for the government team and even for the opposition team to come together and support a promising project, a major project, a project that will benefit all Canadians, particularly those living along the corridor, as well as their children and grandchildren.

The Alto high-speed rail project is a perfect example of what we need to accomplish together as a country. It is a perfect symbol of how united two of our largest provinces are when it comes to tackling climate change, improving congestion and efficiency in our transportation systems, and enhancing Canadians' quality of life in their day-to-day lives, whether they will be taking this train once, occasionally or every day.

Today, I want to talk about this major project, the enthusiasm it is generating across Canada and the profound changes it will make to our economy and to people's lives. I will then talk about Bill C‑15, how vitally important it is to the project's success and the consultations we are carrying out to make sure it is done right. Lastly, I want to speak directly to the people of Mirabel.

The high-speed rail project is inspiring people in Quebec, in Ontario and across Canada. There is huge public interest. We need only look at the people who are flocking to the open houses, the public consultations, to get a preview of this major project, which would be the first of its kind in North America. They are so proud. As Laval's mayor, Stéphane Boyer, said when the announcement was made in December, this is a project that will transform our country and bring Canada fully into the 21st century. The enthusiasm goes far beyond partisan lines. The former Bloc member for Trois‑Rivières, René Villemure, who was the Bloc Québécois transport critic, no less, said he was relieved and delighted when the high-speed rail project was announced.

We all agree that this is a transformative, major project. The corridor that will be served by high-speed rail is home to more than half of Canada's population. It includes our major financial centres, important manufacturing hubs, world-class universities, and innovation clusters. In Mirabel, for example, the aerospace and aeronautics sector is a strong, strategic and valuable pillar of the economy. It is clearly renowned. Mirabel's aerospace cluster is known all over Canada. I have been to the region myself on several occasions. The member for Mirabel is right to say that his constituents are welcoming, but above all, they are forward-looking. Like all Canadians, they are concerned about their children's future. They want to see development in their region and investment in the institutions and capabilities that will enable continued growth.

Together with the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut, we form a core team strong enough to continuously ensure a bright economic future and offer ideas and opportunities to the people of Mirabel. We are proud of that.

However, when we look at the entire transportation corridor between Quebec City and Toronto, we must face a harsh reality. Our transportation system is on its last legs. One only has to take a drive down Highway 20 or the 401, or try to get around Quebec City, Ottawa or Gatineau during rush hour. We simply have to make major investments in our highways and in our rail system. We are dealing with clogged highways, overcrowded airports and a rail system where freight trains take precedence over passenger trains.

It is high time we took action. It is time to reduce the pressure on this corridor, which is critical to our economy and to Canadians' quality of life. High-speed rail will change that reality. It will significantly reduce travel times. It will provide a reliable, modern, low-emission transportation option on dedicated tracks. It will enhance workforce mobility and unlock billions of dollars in economic productivity. The project will also help increase the housing supply. It will create more than 50,000 jobs over 10 years and lower Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tonnes. This is not just a transportation project. It is an economic transformation. It is an investment in Canada's future.

This is all the more important in the current economic climate, especially with what we are experiencing with our neighbours to the south. High-speed rail will boost long-term productivity by expanding labour markets, attracting private investment, and supporting housing growth in the country's most densely populated communities. This is an essential upgrade to a congested transportation network at the heart of Canada's most populous corridor. If Canada wants to remain competitive in an ever-changing global economy, this is exactly the kind of infrastructure we need.

However, it is also clear to us that this project cannot succeed without the support of Canadians. That is why we are doing a lot of consulting and a lot of listening. Since January, Alto and the Government of Canada have been carrying out extensive public consultations, which we announced in December, to help Canadians prepare, ask questions and fully understand the extensive rail line being proposed. In addition to the many studies already completed, Alto has launched an in-depth public consultation process. These consultations will discuss, in particular, route options, station locations, environmental mitigation measures, noise, vibrations, as well as land use and protection. These consultations include virtual sessions, an online information platform and open houses in several communities between Toronto and Quebec City. There will be more. I encourage Canadians who have not yet participated to make their voices heard.

I want to be very clear. These are not meetings where decisions have already been made. On the contrary. If someone asks, “Where will the station be?”, the answer will not be, “Here is where it will be.” The answer will be, “Where do you think it should be, in your opinion?” That is what real and meaningful consultation looks like.

Furthermore, Alto and the Government of Canada are committed to building and maintaining respectful relationships with indigenous communities along the corridor. Engagement with indigenous communities began several years ago and continues today through a targeted consultation process. Bill C‑15 clearly recognizes the importance of indigenous knowledge and provides for its protection. This is how we build modern, linear infrastructure with and for communities.

I would also like to set the record straight in the House: Informing people that land may be required for a project does not automatically mean the land will be expropriated. If expropriation is necessary, it would be carried out in accordance with the expropriation regime in force, with the adjustments provided for in Bill C‑15. The basic rules regarding notice, objection, compensation, assessment, reimbursement of reasonable costs and access to the courts remain unchanged and continue to be governed by the Expropriation Act. Anyone who says otherwise is not being upfront.

I would also like to address a concern raised recently, namely the idea that land can be appropriated by email. Let us be very clear: This is not how expropriation works in Canada, and it will certainly not be the case for Alto, the high-speed rail project. Email cannot be used for expropriation. It is only an optional communication tool used after discussions have begun, and only—I repeat, only—if the owner voluntarily chooses that means of communication. Registered mail remains the norm and it is still fully available, even in the law. Anyone who says otherwise is not being upfront.

The high-speed rail project remains fully subject to the Impact Assessment Act. Yes, certain measures are designed to avoid duplication between federal processes, but this is a matter of making the process more efficient, not weakening it. The project will be thoroughly assessed in terms of environmental impacts, climate impacts, effects on communities, indigenous rights and, of course, long-term sustainability. Nothing in this robust assessment will weaken the project. On the contrary, it will strengthen it. Anyone who says or claims that there is no environmental impact is not being upfront.

Now, I want to address the people of Mirabel directly. This is important.

The Mirabel airport project is one of the most frequently cited examples in Canadian history of what happens when large infrastructure projects are built without taking into account local populations and the reality of communities. It is important to note that this reality has been recognized not only by critics, but also by governments themselves, as the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill just mentioned.

In April 2019, Transport Canada announced that it was restarting the process to sell or return 748 acres of land expropriated in 1969 to the previous owners. As my colleague noted, by that time, the Government of Canada had already returned nearly 90,000 acres of land to Mirabel-area residents through two separate programs in 1985 and 2008. In April 2019, the then minister of transport, the late Marc Garneau, who is in our thoughts every day, announced that Ottawa had made a big mistake 50 years earlier. It is quite clear, obvious even, that he was right. He apologized to the people of Mirabel and to the families who had fallen victim to these expropriations.

This kind of recognition is important. It conveys a fundamental truth: Governments must be able to acknowledge and learn from past mistakes instead of pretending they never happened. I can assure the people of Mirabel, Quebeckers, Ontarians and all Canadians that the Government of Canada is fully aware of these lessons. I would even go so far as to say that both levels of government are fully aware of them.

When a project of such major economic and national significance is being considered, it should be subjected to rigorous review. It should be subjected to thorough analysis. Everything should be done properly in the planning stages and on the ground. The expropriation of the Mirabel airport lands showed us what happens when we take the wrong approach to building. That is absolutely not what will happen with the Alto high-speed train. Anyone who says otherwise is not being upfront.

It will be located where millions of Canadians live and work, in Canada's most densely populated corridor. As the mayor of Quebec City, Bruno Marchand, said, this project will have a major impact on getting people, including workers, from point A to point B more efficiently. This is a major project for Trois‑Rivières, Montreal, Laval and Quebec City.

This project meets a real need. We need to reduce congestion on our roads and get people moving faster and more efficiently.

There is this phenomenon in Canada that does not work in our favour. If all we are doing is adding another process, new wording in a law, another step or something else that does not really improve what we already have, what are we adding?

We are adding delays. Canadians are being deprived of the opportunity to use one type of infrastructure or another. We are adding costs. In this case, it will cost about $5 billion more per year. Therefore, reducing the high-speed rail planning stage from eight to four years, which is what we are proposing, will save Canadians $20 billion. That is a rough estimate, but an estimate nonetheless. Delays cost money.

Canadians spoke loud and clear in last April's election: It is time to build Canada strong. It is high time we get nation-building projects off the ground. It is time to stop beating around the bush and make major investments that will improve the lives of our young people and grow our economic capacity. The part of our economic capacity that hinges on trade with the United States will decrease.

Imagine a student living in Ottawa who wants to enrol in a program at the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières. That student could go to class and come back the same day or go there three days a week. Imagine a worker in Peterborough, a small town, who could go to work in downtown Toronto and thus contribute to the Canadian economy while enjoying life in a small town. It is the same thing in Trois‑Rivières. A business person from Laval could realistically get to Toronto to do business in record time and come home the same day.

This is a linear project. Not a single metre can be missing. It is a project that does not like curves. The high-speed train is a promising project that will be built in a 60-metre-wide corridor. I want to reassure the people of Mirabel and everyone who lives along the line. First, we will use public rights-of-way. Second, if we do need to acquire land, we will do so with as little disruption as possible.

Third, people will be fully compensated, down to the last penny, for the market value of their land.

Three cheers for Alto, Canada and major projects. Let us make this happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, at one point, I was afraid that the minister was not even going mention today's motion. He eventually did address it.

What I saw, however, was that the minister used pretty much the same arguments here in the House as those presented to the people of Mirabel in 1969, namely progress and modernization. Worse still, with Bill C‑15, the government is looking to bypass the normal expropriation process that exists and that is established in legislation. How can we blame the people of Mirabel for not trusting the federal government after the trauma they experienced?

The motion before us today gives the federal government an opportunity to apologize to Mirabel's expropriated residents for the horrors that were committed in 1969 and into the 1970s. However, the minister's perspective is that voting in favour of this motion is not the first step that should be taken. It is not the first thing his government should do to build trust.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, trust will be built on the ground. What are we going to do? We are going to go out and speak with the landowners, not necessarily everyone within a radius of 90,000 hectares or acres, but certainly those within a 60-metre-wide corridor connecting communities across Canada.

I would like to reiterate, for the people of Mirabel, that this process will be nothing like the processes of the past and nothing like what they went through. Time and time again, under both the Conservatives and the Liberals, the Government of Canada has acknowledged past wrongs, and remedies have been offered wherever possible. We will not make the same mistakes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague brought up the issue of high-speed rail, which strays a bit from the topic of the Bloc Québécois motion, I would like to know how many farm families will be affected between Quebec City, Toronto and Windsor. How much farmland will be built on as part of this project?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as few as possible. I think I just said in my speech that public rights of way, such as highways and energy corridors, will be prioritized. Where it is impossible to avoid farmland, we will do everything we can to avoid splitting up land, to ensure that farmers can take full advantage of their lands, their fields and their entire operations. We are going to proceed on a case-by-case basis, carefully, but with the determination to advance this major project that is so coveted by all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way since 2015. In 2015, when we were elected, the former government had unfortunately excluded every segment from Quebec City to Montreal from any projects, including a high-speed rail or even a high-frequency rail.

It is now 2026. What could my colleague, the Minister of Transport, say to my colleagues from Quebec and Quebec City about the importance of this high-speed rail for the Quebec City region?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is of the utmost importance to me that this project benefit the people of Quebec City and the people of Trois‑Rivières. This project will enable Quebec City to continue its commercial development. It will enable educational institutions in Quebec City, such as Université Laval, to keep growing.

Yes, other people may have come up with projects that ruled out the possibility of going beyond Montreal to Quebec City. That is not our intention. As the mayor of Quebec City said and as my colleague often says, “Quebec wants in”. Well, Quebec is in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that, when Marc Garneau apologized, he did so on his own behalf because he did not have the authority to do so on behalf of the government.

What the Bloc Québécois is doing today is giving the government an opportunity to fix past mistakes. When someone from Mirabel reads the Bloc Québécois motion, they will wonder how any MP, particularly one from Quebec, could vote against it.

The Bloc Québécois is not against the high-speed rail project. This Bloc Québécois motion calls for reparations for past mistakes in the form of an official apology from the government, consultations and social licence to ensure that what happened in Mirabel does not happen again.

The minister is from Quebec. He is not heartless. If he is planning to vote against this motion, I really, truly want him to tell me why.