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 thank our colleague for his excellent statement on the importance of this project.

My colleague made a suggestion. He asked how we could work together to encourage people to take part in the consultation process, instead of saying that there is no consultation, or that voicing one's opinion is pointless.

Instead of saying that and discouraging people from sharing their opinions, how can we collectively encourage all Quebeckers in the House of Commons to encourage public participation in this major project?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my speech, consultations began on January 15 and will continue until early March. There are various ways to take part in the consultations.

The members on this side of the House, who represent the government, are committed. We have already started discussions with municipal stakeholders, people in the agricultural sector and Canadians to both talk about the importance of this project and listen to them.

The Minister of Transport spoke about this earlier this morning. The goal of the consultations is to try to find the best possible route, given the requirements associated with the high-speed rail project, on the one hand, and the concerns of the local population, the farmers and the municipal officials, on the other. For example, I am thinking of where the stations will be located. We want to minimize the impact. That is the goal of the consultations we have already begun.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would invite our colleagues to tell the truth. I would like to know which one of our members talked about high-speed rail in apocalyptic terms. I do not think anyone did. The apocalypse happened in Mirabel in 1969. These people experienced the end of the world.

What we are asking for today is precaution. We are not sounding the alarm or saying that it is a bad project. We look at what is being proposed, at these kinds of infomercials being presented as pseudo-consultations, and we figure that we, as elected officials, have a job to do to protect our communities. That is what we are doing. We do not want to hinder the project; we want to protect our people.

I would encourage the member to recognize that fact and to accept that the government should apologize. A few members have recognized the substance of the motion without saying they would actually do it. It would be easy to settle this and work differently in the future. We need to provide that assurance to the public, who are worried.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is clear how the Bloc Québécois operates. They are calling them pseudo-consultations. I wonder how many consultations my colleague has taken part in with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement or the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for him to say that these are pseudo-consultations. That is what they are calling them.

People can attend the consultations in person, by video conference or online. This is a very good way to hold consultations, but once again, the Bloc Québécois is trying to scare people. It is telling people to look at what happened in the late 1960s and saying that we are going to do the same thing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

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.

[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 thank my colleague for his remarks. There is no doubt that we, the members on this side of the House, are actively working with cabinet to always find solutions to address every aspect of this project.

I want to point out that it is entirely appropriate to listen to Canadians and to their questions. What will the repercussions be? What are the steps involved? What has been confirmed? What has not been confirmed? What mechanisms will be put in place?

These are normal questions, and we want to hear them. However, when people come to us, our duty as members of Parliament is not to tell them that they are right to be afraid. It is to inform them that we have a process in place and that we need to proceed with confidence.

If the Bloc Québécois claims to support high-speed rail, why did your party vote against funding it?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary that the word “you” refers to the Speaker.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, she is forgiven; I, too, sometimes address members directly.

We can see how easy it is to acknowledge mistakes and forgive one another. It would be nice if the government apologized so the people of Mirabel can finally turn the page on this hurt and look to the future.

For my colleague's sake, I will repeat the purpose of today's motion. Earlier, she listed all the processes that protect our constituents and give them a real right to appeal. The purpose of today's motion is to convince ourselves that we can tell our constituents to move forward with confidence because the government will have made a formal commitment to ensure that the laws are respected during consideration of Bill C‑15. We want the government to work with us to ensure that those rights are not taken away.

We are not telling our constituents that they are right to be afraid. We are telling them that our analysis of the bills currently under consideration is scaring us. There seems to be a desire to skip steps. That scares me. If this drags on, there may be a decision to move forward at some point. That is what we want to avoid, and we are trying to achieve that in a very constructive way.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc mentioned that there is talk of a distrust in government. I am hearing that a lot too. What happened in Mirabel is terrible. There are issues with private property across the country right now that are not being addressed, even in my province of British Columbia.

Why do you think the people of Canada, or residents, have a distrust in the current government?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

As a reminder to the member, when using “you”, it is through the Speaker. I will not explain what I am thinking.

I would invite the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to explain what he thinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is, in fact, the issue today.

We have been talking a lot about Mirabel. We are being told that we are sensationalizing this issue. First of all, that is not what we are doing. We are telling the House about the history and the wounds and explaining why we are asking for this. What we want is to heal these wounds so that we can move forward in an atmosphere of trust. I call on the government to make this commitment. My message to the government is that it should make a commitment to respecting people. If it does not respect people, it will have to contend with the Bloc Québécois members. I do not think that is what it wants, since it claims it wants to work together.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we moved calls for respect and dignity for the people of Mirabel. When I hear the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie reduce this motion to a Bloc Québécois tactic, I dare say that the cynicism he is showing today suggests that politics is wearing on him. I have known him for a long time, and this is not the intellectual integrity I would have expected of him.

Now, we have been told since this morning that we want to leave people in the past and that we only want to focus on the past. Does my colleague not believe that voting in favour of this motion would mean bringing the people of Mirabel into the future instead of leaving them in the past?

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

Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful summary by my colleague, the MP for Montcalm. That is exactly right. It is very simple.

The MPs across the aisle can try as hard as they want to demonize our approach today. We are going to bat for our people. We are going to bat for the future. However, to build the future, we need a solid foundation that was built in the past, and right now there are cracks in that foundation. Could an apology fill those cracks and appease the people? Maybe then the government could ask for people's trust, because we will be there to keep an eye on it. That is all we are asking for.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debates since this morning and I see what the government is trying to do by suggesting that we are fearmongering and that we are living in the past.

I want to clarify something. I want to clearly state what our intentions are and also explain something that is very troubling to every parliamentarian here. I want to come back to the motion.

The motion very clearly calls on the government to apologize to the people whose land was expropriated in Mirabel and to acknowledge the collective trauma experienced by those who were forced to abandon their homes and significantly change their life plans. We are also calling on the government to learn from its mistakes and commit to not undertaking such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation.

When I looked at our motion, I was inspired by what the Prime Minister did in his speech in Davos.

The Prime Minister is a well-read man. In his speech in Davos, he drew attention to an author I really admire, Václav Havel. He talked about the power of the powerless and especially the celebrated idea of living in truth.

I would like to invite the Liberals to live in truth, so I want to explore the concept not of apology, but of forgiveness. These are two different things. The philosopher who discussed the concept of forgiveness the most vigorously was Vladimir Jankélévitch. The Prime Minister might be familiar with his work. Jankélévitch said that there is a difference between forgiveness and apology. As Vladimir Jankélévitch sees it, forgiveness is recognition of the seriousness of the offence. With this motion, what we are asking the government to do this morning is to recognize the seriousness of the offence against the residents of Mirabel. In keeping with Vladimir Jankélévitch's perspective, forgiveness is not the same as an apology, where the intent is to reduce liability or erase blame because it was involuntary.

My friend from Lac-Saint-Jean often uses the rhetoric of apologies, saying that it is not his fault and that it is unintentional. We forgive him. However, that is not what we are looking for from the government today. Instead, we are looking for true awareness. Apologies are an attempt to downplay responsibility, often by contextualizing, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean does and as the government also does. What we are asking for, namely forgiveness, means taking responsibility, and that is what we are doing today. We are saying to the government that it acted dishonourably in the past and that it needs to take responsibility for it. That is how a wrongdoer expresses responsibility. What we are trying to do today, what we are asking the government to do, is to take steps to acknowledge the wrong that it did to the people of Mirabel so that it never happens again. I want to emphasize that: never again. In fact, all things considered, today the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to reflect on its responsibility, something the government does not often do. We want to make the government aware that it cannot repeat the tragedy of the Mirabel expropriations by contextualizing and blaming challenging conditions that may be adverse to our economy. I say this because the danger of a tragedy like the one in Mirabel happening again is very real.

In both Bill C-5 and Bill C-15, the government is giving itself a way to shirk its responsibilities under the pretext of responding to the tariff crisis. As in the case of Mirabel, both Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 use the rhetoric of major projects that will build a new Canada to justify deviations from democracy without any guarantee of results.

I would remind the House that, last June, the Bloc Québécois vehemently opposed Bill C-5, which allowed the government to exempt proponents of major projects from the obligation to comply with certain laws. The government goes even further with Bill C-15. Consider, for example, something hidden on page 300 of the bill. There is a seemingly benign amendment to the Red Tape Reduction Act, which was passed by the Harper government.

The government is giving the minister the power, for three years, to exempt any company from any law, except, of course, the Criminal Code. Imagine that.

Here is what the bill says:

...a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act; (b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code....

The government is telling us that these exemptions are meant to facilitate innovative projects, but we have our doubts. In reality, what the government's amendment does is place any company above any law.

It is at this point that we need to look back on the infamous case of Mirabel and what it teaches us. Rushing ahead the way we are with Bill C-5 and Bill C-15, while setting aside the principles of the law and abandoning government responsibility, is a disaster waiting to happen.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to give an example of this inconsistent behaviour we are seeing. The government introduced a plan to build oil and gas infrastructure. This infrastructure is supposed to help us get through the tariff crisis. I will skip over the whole issue of co-operation in the case of the agreement between the federal government and Alberta, which was announced without British Columbia even being informed that negotiations were happening about infrastructure that would pass through its territory. I will leave that aside. Rather, the real inconsistency in the government's behaviour is that it is trying to persuade the public that its measures will address the tariff crisis.

When we take a closer look at what the government is actually doing, we quickly realize who would benefit from the creation of oil and gas infrastructure. The biggest players in the oil and gas sector are 80% American-owned. The government is in a hurry to give itself additional powers to build infrastructure without having to comply with laws so that, at the end of the day, it can give more opportunities to American companies. We could not make this stuff up.

In recent years, which large companies have made the most profit in Canada? Companies in the oil and gas sector have. For every dollar of profit, 60% goes into the pockets of American owners. Today, with Bills C-5 and C-15, the government is trying to force infrastructure projects down our throats that will have the same kind of impact we saw for the citizens of Mirabel. These infrastructure projects will benefit Americans under the pretext of fighting the tariff crisis, without respecting environmental principles.

I am saying all this because, ultimately, we realize that when the government acts in a hurry, disaster often looms. One prime example of this is what was done in the past in Mirabel.

Today we want the government to be aware of its actions, to apologize to the citizens of Mirabel and to commit to not repeating this type of mistake.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Government of Canada ensure that the serious mistakes made in 1969 are not repeated and will not be repeated?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government could start by apologizing, and if it does not want to make the same mistakes again, maybe it should not give itself the means to make them. I would invite my colleague to listen to my speech again. Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑15 give the government the tools to make those mistakes again.

The hon. member can talk to her colleagues if she wants to prevent that from happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for the people of Mirabel. We are talking about families that farmed their land for generations and generations and passed it on down. It is important for Mirabel, important for Quebec and important for Canada. I cannot think of a reason why the government would not want to simply give the good people of Mirabel an apology so they could have final closure on this.

It was two Canadian Conservative prime ministers, Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, who returned that land back to the people of Mirabel.

Why will the government not give some closure and apologize to the people of Mirabel and the people of Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. At the beginning of my speech, I talked about the speech in which the Prime Minister referenced Václav Havel and said that we should live in truth.

If the government wants to live in truth, it should take responsibility, apologize and ask the people of Mirabel for forgiveness. The only reason it would not do this is that it thinks there is a political price to pay. If that is the case, it is not acting ethically. It is simply acting in its own best interest and maintaining its image.

Personally, I invite all of my Liberal colleagues to reflect on what a good lawmaker should do.

The only possible action is to apologize.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing to my colleague from Jonquière for all past wrongs I committed against him. I hope he will be magnanimous enough to forgive me.

Now, my question for him is this: If Liberal members were to vote against this motion, especially members who represent Quebec ridings in the Liberal caucus, how does he think it would affect their influence within the governing party's caucus?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

If they vote against the motion, they will be standing up to say that they do not recognize the wrong that was done to the people of Mirabel in 1969.

Not only would they be refusing to acknowledge that wrong, they would be refusing to apologize and to ask for forgiveness. As far as their conscience is concerned, it would mean they are prepared to do the same thing again on the simple pretext that it aligns with the goal of economic development and the government's intentions.

That would be very unfortunate, but I am eager to hear my Liberal colleagues' response: Will they agree to apologize to the people of Mirabel, or will they choose to toe the Liberals' party line?

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

Mr. Speaker, several provisions of the high-speed rail network legislation are aligned with Quebec's expropriation legislation.

Does the Bloc Québécois support that provincial legislation?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those are two entirely different things.

I just want my colleague to acknowledge the facts. What he can do today is acknowledge the facts in front of him, reread the motion and speak to the motion.

If he believes that irreparable harm has been done to the people of Mirabel, I invite him to convince his colleagues to vote in favour of the motion. It would be a gesture of reparation.

If he believes that no irreparable harm has been done to the people of Mirabel, I invite him to look at history and what has been done since 1969 and to take note of it.

He therefore has a choice to make. He can either toe the government line to keep his reputation intact, or he can respect the people of Mirabel and vote with us in favour of the motion.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I rise today with the utmost respect for the families and communities that were affected by the Mirabel expropriations. As many here know, I have lived in the Lower Laurentians region for a number of years. My riding of Rivière-des-Milles-Îles includes Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère. It is just south of Mirabel. I have always worked in the Lower Laurentians. I raised my family there. I have connected with people from all over the Lower Laurentians and Laval. The issue that the Bloc Québécois is talking about is not abstract to me. It brings to mind faces, stories and memories.

What happened in 1969 had a profound impact on thousands of people, families that lost their homes, their lands and their communities, often without even understanding what was happening and with no way to defend themselves. At the time, we lived in Laval, and my father had a stable. That was when everyone's farms were expropriated. My father wanted to update his stable and took me, as a young girl, to buy equipment in Mirabel, in Sainte-Scholastique. I still remember how heartbreaking it was to see the deserted farmlands and the empty barns. It was so sad. That is what struck me then as a little girl. Again, I have a lot of respect for the families that went through this.

That moment in history is a wound that has not yet healed. The trauma is transferred from one generation to the next. It is important to acknowledge that with humility. I ran four times in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and I went door knocking all four times. Every time I would meet people from the Mirabel area—it was not Mirabel at the time; it was Sainte-Scholastique, Saint-Janvier, four or five towns that merged. When I knock on doors in Saint-Eustache, I still meet people whose land was expropriated.

Recognizing this reality is not about making excuses; it is about recognizing that mistakes were made, saying that this should not have happened, and committing to doing better. Since then, our legislation has changed, our practices have evolved, and the way we work in our communities has been transformed. Today, we can no longer impose a bill without consultation, we can no longer act without transparency, and we can no longer ignore citizens. Frankly, that is a good thing.

High-speed rail is an important project for our country. Do my colleagues know that the first segment to be built will be between Montreal and Ottawa, with 25 trains running per day? Travelling from Toronto to Montreal will take three hours by train. It will take two hours to get from Toronto to Ottawa and one hour to get from Montreal to Ottawa. Also, going from Montreal to Quebec City will take an hour and a half. The corridor will need to be 60 metres wide for the train to pass. The project will span about 1,000 kilometres once the project is completed. Evidently, this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100,000 tonnes, which is huge. That is what we want: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, 92% of Ontarians and Quebeckers support this project. Obviously, Ontario and Quebec support the project, as do the mayors of Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, and I would add Laval as well. The first phase of consultations is currently under way. Today, in Saint-Eustache, one of the four cities in my riding, there will be consultations in the afternoon and evening. I want people to know that if they are in Saint-Eustache, they can go to the consultations today and see what is on offer. They will be able to ask questions. Now is the time.

This project will create jobs, 50,000 of them. It will use our materials. It will use our steel and aluminum. It will employ people from Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Laval, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. It will bring our regions closer together.

It will improve our mobility. It will also support our economy. There will also be a very positive impact on the environment. This is a project that will leave its mark on an entire generation. I hope I will have the opportunity and the privilege to go from Quebec City to Windsor or Toronto. I hope I will be able to do that in my lifetime. To make that happen, we have to proceed respectfully, and that is exactly what the law provides for.

The law requires consultations. It provides for serious assessments. It promotes voluntary acquisition. It limits expropriation. It guarantees fair compensation. It recognizes the rights of communities. It puts Canadians at the heart of the process. I understand the concerns that have been shared. I understand that there are fears. I also understand the mistrust that people sometimes feel. When someone has experienced an injustice, they become more vigilant. That is normal. What the people of Mirabel went through was unacceptable. I sincerely believe that we now have the tools to do things differently. We have learned from the past. We have strengthened our laws since then, and we have changed our culture. We are a long way from the 1960s and 1970s. We live in a Canada that listens better, holds more consultations and is more respectful.

In my riding, people tell me two things: one, that they want their history to be respected, and two, that they want their children to have a future. They want jobs—good jobs. They want modern infrastructure and efficient services. They want responsible development. They want us to move forward without forgetting where we came from.

This debate should not divide us. It should unite us all in pursuit of a common goal. We want to build a major project without repeating the mistakes of the past. We should all be united around a simple idea. It is possible to be both ambitious and humane. It is possible to build and think big while listening to people. It is possible to invest in the future without hurting communities. I sincerely believe that this bill is the key. It will allow us to bring this project to fruition, protect residents and take action respectfully.

In closing, I want to tell the families in Mirabel and the families of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles that their history matters, that their voices matter and that their experience is guiding us. I want to tell young people that we are working hard to make their country modern, fair and united. We can do both, but we must all work together to make it happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member explained to us how passionate and inspired she was by the much-touted Alto high-speed rail project.

I did not quite understand her position on the motion being debated today. It makes me wonder. What we are criticizing is that the people of Mirabel were not part of the consultations, first of all. We are criticizing the unceremonious strategies used in Bill C‑15 to fast-track processes outside the usual laws.

That said, at the end of the day, the motion we are debating today calls for an apology to the people of Mirabel. The member agreed that what was done to the people of Mirabel in the past was wrong.

How would apologizing to the people of Mirabel compromise the project that she cares so much about?