Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.
I will begin by reassuring my colleague opposite that, yes, I have participated in consultations in the past. I have a message for the people watching at home: They can take part in consultations and have a meaningful impact on projects as ordinary citizens. That is exactly what I did in the municipality of Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois when I attended Quebec's environmental public hearings board, or BAPE, because one of our drinking water sources was at risk.
When people throw accusations around and say that other people do not know or have never seen certain things, they should be careful about the high horse they are riding on when talking to colleagues. We are all equals, we are all elected officials. That is what I want my colleagues to remember.
Now, what we are asking for today is an apology, because that has never been done. I am hearing all sorts of things that make no sense. We are being told that we want to live in the past and that we are fearmongering. That is not what we are doing.
We looked at the beginning of the project, particularly with regard to the Mirabel area, where the route was recently modified. From what I have heard about the consultations that were held, they were more like information sessions. People were told that they could look at the wonderful project to give their opinion if they wanted to. The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that those opinions are taken into account and that the law is respected.
I liked the speech by the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville, because she talked about those details. That is exactly what we want. We want the law to be respected, but we are concerned. Why are we talking about Mirabel? It is because no apology has ever been offered and we are heading back into the same territory.
The train will also pass through Berthier—Maskinongé, and I am concerned for my constituents. Some members are saying they do not understand our concern, given how good the project will be for everyone. A riding like Berthier—Maskinongé is basically a rural area between cities. We do not have any cities. The train will simply pass through our riding. I cannot say that there is a huge gain for us. The Bloc Québécois has always said that high-speed rail is a positive project, a major one, but is it too much to ask that the work be done properly? Basically, that is what we are saying this morning. Can the work be done properly, with respect for the people?
My colleague told me that I do not understand the environmental assessment process, but I hope he has seen the maps. There corridors are 100 kilometres wide. That seems excessive. Only 60 metres is required to accommodate high-speed rail.
People say that the Bloc Québécois is using this to make political hay, but the fact is people contacted us directly. I will once again make my colleague across the floor happy by telling him that I will be in Trois-Rivières on February 18, and I will be in Berthierville on February 19. I know that citizens, particularly agricultural producers, will be there to protest and may oppose the project. They are afraid because the project is being presented quickly, and they are being told that the government wants to move faster and is going to carry out incredible infrastructure projects. Last spring, the House passed Bill C‑5, which gives the government the power to override all legislation on the pretext that this is a major, forward-looking project. That is where our fear comes from.
We are currently studying Bill C‑15 at the Standing Committee on Finance. It is a bill that will give the government excessive powers. We have spoken out against it. The government hid this on page 300 of a 660-page document, and then they come and tell us that we have to be honest and work in good faith. I feel like saying, “let's go, come on”. Can we really work in good faith?
We are looking at this, and we see that powers are going to be changed. This bill will grant powers, including with respect to section 98 on the Canadian Transportation Agency. Under our current interpretation, the government will be able to override the agency. We want assurance on that front. A government member even admitted that this would spare cabinet the embarrassment of being contradicted by the agency. After that, we are told that we are scaremongering. We read the bills. We hear things, and, of course, we feel like reacting. Things get emotional.
We can imagine how emotional it was for the communities. We spoke at length about the people in Mirabel, the children who watched their fathers cry on the kitchen table.
In Forillon Park or St-Scholastique
Gotta make way for tourists and airplanes
Early mornin', gotta hit the bricks
We're in the way, they explained
Got played a damn dirty trick
Chased off our homes, our lands, our country.
In case my colleagues did not recognize it, that was from a song by Paul Piché. It is a simple reminder that this is also about human beings. We are not using that quote for political hay or anything of the sort. We know that big projects are on the horizon. We see this business-first government, clearly under corporate influence, that wants to act quickly and seems to have contempt for parliamentary work. The Prime Minister—if I may be judgmental for a second—does not look like he enjoys being here. That is what it seems like.
Our job is to make sure that our legislation is complied with. I was honest earlier when I said that I enjoyed the member for Thérèse-De Blainville's interventions. She mentioned specific acts and said that it was done under proper legislation. That is exactly what we want to ensure: that the legislation is complied with.
We have identified a number of threats in Bill C‑15. It is still being studied. We are concerned that the official opposition might approve it all. We want to take precautions before changing laws. Changes to impact studies and selective modifications suggest an intent to limit the right to object. That is what we want to avoid.
Why plan for 100 kilometres when they need only 60 metres? In Mirabel, the government had to give 85% of the land back. We do not want that to happen again. I have been listening to my Liberal colleagues in good faith, as I always try to do. I am not perfect, but I always try to act in good faith.
I am looking at our motion. We are asking the government to apologize for the expropriations. It had to give 85% of the land back to people. People were tenants in their homes for years. I do not want my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé to go through that.
A dairy farmer talked to me two days ago. He told me that he had looked at the proposed route, that he and his family were really panicking and that they would be going to the consultation in Trois‑Rivières on February 18 because the route goes across a corner of his porch. He asked me if I was going to go. I am not making this up. I am not exaggerating for effect. I am telling you what a constituent told me.
I often joke with my colleagues and staff that I am too sensitive for this work. That is my situation. Maybe I am too sensitive for this work, but I cannot understand why a government does not have the courtesy to admit that what happened in 1969 was a mistake, to apologize, to acknowledge that this was a collective trauma and to promise that this will never happen again.
Since this morning, government members have said all of these things and acknowledged everything that is in the motion. I can find a quote for every word and put a member's name to it. I thank them for that. It means that they are aware of it. What I do not understand is why, for next week's vote, they are unable to persuade their caucus colleagues that the Bloc Québécois's motion is not dangerous, that the Bloc is not trying to corner the government and that it simply wants the government to agree to do things right.
They have been saying this all day long, so what is the problem? The problem is that the Liberals tend to say not to worry, only to turn around and do the opposite. The government has apologized to many groups, and that is a good thing. We agree on that. It is important to acknowledge the mistakes of the past in order to move forward in a positive way. I think the people of Mirabel deserve that. I think the people of Berthier—Maskinongé who will be affected by the Alto project deserve to have it done right. They deserve assurances that their rights will be respected and that there will be a genuine right to appeal.
That is why I encourage the member to speak with her colleagues and convince them.