Alexis Deschênes
Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a bibli…”
“Here is the first one: 11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or…”
“Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9 , some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay. I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Alexis Deschênes, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois immigration critic, I want to tell the House our position on the bill introduced by my Conservative colleague from Calgary Nose Hill . We will vote in favour of Bill C-220 so it can be studied in committee. This is to allow for continued democratic discussion on the important issue of sentencing in criminal cases where the accused does not have citizenship status. However, my colleague should curb her enthusiasm, because we have several reservations about this bill. These are serious reservations, which I will summarize in two points. First, we believe that the current legal situation is well balanced. Second, we believe it is important to preserve judicial discretion, in order to avoid inappropriate decisions that fail to take the circumstances of individual cases into account.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we share a lot of the same concerns about Bill C-13 . My question is about investor-state dispute settlement and the tension between our legitimate need to ensure national sovereignty, in other words, that everyone who does business here is working within the same laws, and this kind of parallel mechanism that international trade agreements often tend to put in place. What are my colleague's thoughts about this mechanism that will allow investors from the United Kingdom to bypass our courts and our common law systems by going directly to an arbitration mechanism?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with workers at a factory, a sorting facility, in my riding. The first issue they raised was housing. I was asked how we could ensure that housing gets built faster in my riding. It is a very broad question, but I would like to pose it to my colleague. How will Build Canada Homes speed up housing construction?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her co-operation during our work together on housing projects in my riding, in the Gaspé and on the Magdalen Islands. I would like to ask her a question, because I think she has a good grasp of regional realities. At the moment, construction costs are often 30% higher in the regions, but the funds provided by governments to build affordable housing make no allowance for this disparity. As a result, the same housing in the Gaspé has to cost 30% less to offset the additional costs. What does my colleague think Build Canada Homes would have to do to ensure that regional realities will be taken into account?”
“Mr. Speaker, we, too, are concerned about Build Canada Homes. One of our concerns is that it is a large bureaucratic entity that is too far removed from the action and does not provide adequate justification for its decisions. That is what is happening already. In my riding, proponents of a housing project received a letter saying that their proposal was rejected because the program is so competitive. How would my colleague improve Build Canada Homes, if it can be improved?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the Conservative Party's motion, they propose to adopt policies that would see the immediate deportation of foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes in Canada. However, section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already provides for the deportation of individuals convicted of serious crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, as well as those sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than six months. What is wrong with that section and what would the Conservative member like to add?”
“Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has already been calling on the federal government for quite some time now to reimburse Quebec for its costs, given the influx of migrants at Roxham Road. I think we agree on that point, since we are both calling on the federal government to reimburse the costs. I completely agree with my colleague that we need to apply pressure and that the federal government needs to live up to its obligations. This is all very sensitive, because there may be all sorts of consequences if the government does not properly process asylum claims within a respectful time frame. On the one hand, there is currently a risk of criminal gangs from certain countries slipping in. On the other hand, there are also people who are waiting far too long when they should be receiving status.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is an excellent one, and there are two parts to the answer. As we have seen, the increase in costs is due to the increase in refugee claims. That is not the federal government's fault. However, the Liberal government needs to answer for failing to add resources to process refugee claims given the growing demand from asylum seekers. That is the federal government's fault. More than that, pressuring the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to process claims faster without giving it the necessary resources resulted in what we saw yesterday. The government is doing away with security screening. We can talk about that in the coming days.”
“Madam Speaker, my point is that legitimate grievances can exist in a society. A person waiting for a hip replacement in Quebec has a right to be angry about delays. What we need to do is find a solution to that problem, not look for someone to blame. That is what I am worried about. I believe we certainly have the means to take proper care of asylum seekers. However, the federal government also needs to invest more in health care because, otherwise, there will be resentment. The Conservative Party has a role to play, but so does the federal government, and it should increase federal funding for health care.”
“What happens then? Health care workers will treat the person, of course, but the federal program will not cover the cost. Who will pay the bill? The provinces. If this motion goes through, the cost will be transferred to the provinces. We are against that.”
“First, under the Geneva Convention, refugees lawfully staying in the territory are entitled to the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to nationals. As such, they are entitled to public assistance. The federal government tried to take away services for asylum seekers in 2012, but the Federal Court ruled that this was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to Canadians' right to be protected from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and their right to equality. There is a legal issue at play, so that could not happen. Second, let us imagine for a moment an asylum seeker who goes to a hospital seeking care for a broken arm. Let us apply the Conservative motion. Is a broken arm life-threatening? I do not think so. A person can survive with a broken arm.”
“The federal government could address that by increasing health transfers to the provinces. The latest budget has the federal government slashing health transfers to the provinces. What with inflation and population aging, it is clear that the federal funding will not keep up with system costs. To take action on this, I urge the Conservative Party to support our demand for a more substantial increase in federal health transfers. In closing, the motion contains measures that are likely to be impractical and that will add to the burden on the provinces. One example is restricting benefits received by asylum seekers to emergency life-saving health care only. My time is almost up, but I would like to give two reasons for opposing that measure.”
“It is true that the cost of the federal health program has quadrupled, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says he expects the increase to be much smaller over the next few years. As I said earlier, I think that the Conservative Party's claim that Canadians are unable to get health care because resources are going to rejected asylum claimants is dangerous and counterproductive. It is dangerous because ordinarily, a G7 country should be able to take on the cost of providing health care to asylum seekers while still allocating adequate funding for provincial health care systems. It is counterproductive because this kind of false inference sows division and resentment, when our goal should be to try to reconcile divergent interests in our society. People in Quebec and in the other provinces who are waiting for health care do deserve better.”
“As I have already mentioned, Quebec bears a burden that is much greater than its proportional weight in the Canadian federation when it comes to taking in asylum seekers. Quebec is very welcoming, but we believe that the burden that comes with welcoming asylum seekers could be better distributed among the provinces, even though, as I said, we welcome newcomers with open arms. That could help Quebec provide public services to asylum seekers. We have also made demands regarding the additional costs stemming from the 2024 wave of immigration. We would like the federal government to repay Quebec for the costs it incurred, which amount to $700 million. To wrap up this point, I would like to refer to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, because on its face, the motion paints a doomsday scenario.”
“The person has access to health care for that 40-month period. Of course this is going to drive up costs. It does not have to be that way; it is possible to be efficient. There are efficient countries in the world. France and Germany have also dealt with waves of migration. France is able to process claims within six months and Germany within just over eight months. Could Canada learn from these best practices? Could it process asylum claims quickly? I certainly hope so. If there is a structural reason as to why Canada is always less efficient, I would ask the members opposite to explain it to us. This gives me an opportunity to highlight the Bloc's traditional demands with regard to asylum seekers.”
“Perhaps the members of the Bloc Québécois are somewhat idealistic, but I do not think it is naive to hope that the federal government, which is part of the G7, can work efficiently and quickly without compromising security checks. Asylum claim processing times are catastrophic. The number of asylum claimants has gone up. What does a responsible government entity do when it sees that it has a high volume of claims? It is clear that the instinct has been to cut back on security checks, but the rational reaction would be to increase resources to process claims faster. However, the Liberal government has not done that, and the result is that processing backlogs have increased significantly. (1115) In Quebec, 40 months can go by between the time someone files an asylum claim and when they receive the final decision.”
“The increased costs stemming from the fact that the eligibility period is longer is driven by the fact that the federal government is slow to process asylum claims. This is an important factor because it points to a solution, which is that the federal government should process claims more effectively. The government must process asylum claims faster, while maintaining the quality of the process. As my colleague said a few minutes ago, it is clear that when the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is asked to go faster, the instinct seems to be to botch the job, as we say back home, and to remove security checks.”
“To give members an idea of the numbers, between 2019 and 2024, Canada's annual asylum claims rose from 64,000 to a record 173,000, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. There were 60,000 asylum claimants living in Quebec in 2021, and that number rose to 180,000 in 2025. This is a three-fold increase in the number of asylum claimants across the province. Obviously, these people come here, make an asylum claim and have access to health care, so it is understandable how this would drive up costs. More people are eligible for the program, after all. On average, Quebec has received approximately 40% of asylum claimants, even though the province represents slightly under 22% of the Canadian population.”
“In his February 12 report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer wrote that the cost of the program grew as both the number of beneficiaries and the cost per beneficiary increased significantly. He went on to say, “In recent years, the number of beneficiaries has increased considerably. The rising volume of asylum claims, along with the longer duration of eligibility caused by extended determination times, has been an important growth driver in recent years.” What the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is that the costs are going up because of increasing demand and because the eligibility period for asylum seekers is getting longer. Global geopolitical events are partially responsible for the increase in asylum claims, and as a result, it is perfectly normal for us to step up to meet our international obligations.”
“Third, the motion proposes measures that may be difficult to implement, in addition to increasing the burden on the provinces, such as restricting reimbursed care for asylum claimants to emergency life-saving health care only. I still want to emphasize that we agree with the motion's observation regarding the inequity between asylum claimants and Quebec citizens with respect to coverage for certain services such as vision care and dental care. Allow me to explain our reasons in a bit more detail. First, the Conservative motion states that the cost of the interim federal health program has more than quadrupled in recent years, rising from $211 million to $896 million, which is accurate. However, I think it is important to explain what caused the increase in costs.”
“Madam Speaker, first I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon . Her riding may get a new name soon that will probably be easier to pronounce. As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, citizenship and refugees, I would like to lay out our party's position on the official opposition's motion on health care for asylum claimants that we are debating today. The Bloc Québécois is against this motion for the following reasons. First, it omits important information regarding the reasons that explain the increase in health care costs for asylum claimants. Second, the motion makes a risky and counterproductive link between the health care costs incurred by asylum claimants and the lack of federal funding for the provinces' health care systems.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that Build Canada Homes will create a new point of federal-provincial friction and make things more complicated. I agree with my colleague on that. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. What does he think of our proposal, which is simply for the federal government to redistribute the billions of dollars to the provinces so that the provinces can manage the construction of new homes themselves?”
“Is there not once again a risk that Ottawa will impose a one-size-fits-all solution and think it can oversee housing construction?”
“Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois share my colleague's concerns about the centralizing and bureaucratic nature of Build Canada Homes. Of course we want housing to be built and we want the federal government to invest. I will give an example. There is a program from the Quebec government in my riding, but the situation is somewhat similar. The cost of modular homes was calculated, and the same rule was applied all across Quebec. However, the government did not take into account the fact that, in the Gaspé, house parts need to be delivered. As a result, everyone who was accepted for the program is now short on funds to finance the construction. Could my colleague comment on the fact that the bill seeks to give Build Canada Homes the power to carry out construction work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I think that we share his concerns about the centralist nature of the bill. Let us not forget that the Liberal government's last good idea on housing was the Canada housing infrastructure fund, which was announced in April 2024. It took almost two years before an agreement was finally reached with Quebec for the money to come through. I would like my colleague's thoughts on a concern of mine. I come from a rural area. There are small villages where I live, and there is a significant need for housing. However, these projects often involve 12 or 24 housing units, while the federal government usually focuses on large projects in cities. Does my colleague share my concern that rural areas are once again being forgotten?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the federal government was swamped with asylum claims at Roxham Road, its solution was to accept refugees indiscriminately in order to speed up the process. Ottawa drew up a list of countries whose applicants were automatically accepted without any questions asked. Those countries included Russia, Afghanistan, Iran and many others that are currently problematic. As a result, at the height of the Roxham Road crisis, the acceptance rate for asylum claims rose from 65% to 80%. Why did the government agree to accept refugees without meeting them?”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government's loss of control during the Roxham Road crisis is worse than we feared. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, when the federal government was overwhelmed by too many refugee claims, it scaled back its assessments. Between 2019 and 2023, 25,000 people were accepted as refugees without being interviewed. These are 25,000 refugees who were accepted, many of them in Quebec, and nobody even met with them to double-check their statements. We learned in committee this morning that this approach is still being used today. When will the government take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his joyful words. I have a question for him. Why are the Conservatives getting all worked up about EV subsidies, saying that this encourages foreign auto manufacturers, but they are perfectly fine with giving about $10 billion in subsidies every year to the oil industry, 60% of which is owned by Americans?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that EVs are the future. There are currently no EV assembly plants in Quebec. However, subsidies for purchasing EVs are effective because they fast-track the electrification of transportation and make EVs more affordable. What does the Conservative Party have against more affordable EVs?”
“I am happy to know that Baden-Powell's work continues to this day, and I am pleased to highlight the scouting movement today. Congratulations to the scouts of Quebec and to the volunteers, and, as the motto says, “be prepared”. Now, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why move this amendment at this stage of the debate on the motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by taking a moment to recognize scouting week, which runs from February 16 to 22 this year. The scouting movement is an educational path for young people that is based on volunteerism and is open to all, as conceived by its founder, Baden-Powell. Scouting is the largest youth movement in the world, and the francophone scouting movement brings together more than 10,000 young people across the country, supported by more than 3,700 dedicated volunteers. I was a cub scout myself as a kid growing up in the Gaspé region. I remember the inclusive and constructive values that were promoted, including community involvement, teamwork and learning. I have fond memories of camping in the forest in the dead of winter.”
“Mr. Speaker, my party is in favour of electric vehicle subsidies. However, we are disappointed that the federal government has scrapped the idea of an electric vehicle availability standard that would have required all vehicles sold in Canada as of 2035 to be electric. Such a regulatory tool would have been key to achieving transportation electrification. Can my colleague explain why they scrapped this measure in favour of an emissions standard that will not be as effective in promoting the transition to electric vehicles?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his explanations. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill and believes that it gives parliamentarians a tool to put pressure on the executive branch in the event that it fails to meet its obligations. I understand what my colleague is saying. We should be able to expect the government to do its job and we, as MPs, could apply pressure. However, let us consider the example of the Auditor General of Canada. She is the one who informed us last October that when people were calling the Canada Revenue Agency, they were getting accurate answers only 17% of the time. Why does my colleague not think it would be beneficial to have another tool that could keep us more informed as parliamentarians?”
“Furthermore, developing a strategy when one has already been launched is, unfortunately, an initiative that we consider unnecessary. We believe that the Government of Canada has already consulted sufficiently. What it must do is respect Quebec's jurisdiction and transfer funds to Quebec. That is how to give the provinces the means to act to restore hope to our young people and to re-establish the intergenerational justice that we have unfortunately lost in recent years.”
“My colleague spoke about it a few minutes ago. This bill seeks to develop a national housing strategy for young people through consultations. It raises issues of policy consistency and public efficiency. It is a very short bill that tells us that a national strategy will be developed and that consultations will be held. It is important to be wary of legislative bloat. We know that the government does not need a law to consult young people and the provinces. All it takes is a telephone or a computer and an email. All of my colleagues from all parties here are in fairly constant consultation with groups that have housing projects in their ridings. I am convinced of that. As for the notion of consultation in this bill, it is rather astounding.”
“Last fall, there were times when some projects were in serious jeopardy because Quebec grew tired of waiting for a confirmation, but a federal election was in progress. We also see that some programs are not properly aligned. That is something this government can work on. I also think that it needs to acknowledge that Quebec has jurisdiction and that its own role is to transfer funds. If that happens, each province will finally be able to set up programs the way they want. Programs will be better suited to provincial realities, and housing can get built. In any case, this is what we propose as a way to give hope, especially to our young people. As for Bill C‑227 , unfortunately, it does not address the hopes of young people and the intergenerational justice we are seeking. We, in the Bloc Québécois, oppose this bill.”
“It is easy enough to understand, and it could have a fairly direct impact. If, two years ago, municipalities had already been able to obtain funds to invest in their infrastructure, housing projects could already have been completed. Homes would already be under construction and part of the problem would be solved. However, what happened instead was a series of lengthy negotiations between the federal government, which wanted to impose its conditions, and Quebec, which wanted to defend its jurisdiction. Housing takes a lot of effort and coordination by all the partners. I see it in my riding. Housing projects get started by organizations and municipal housing offices. Every time, these people have to do cartwheels to move their project forward while meeting the deadlines set by Quebec and the federal government.”
“(1745) Along with the Government of Quebec, the federal government made an announcement in Quebec City on January 21. It was announced that the portion of the Canada housing infrastructure fund earmarked for Quebec was finally being transferred. It was a $1-billion announcement, but the important thing to remember is that this fund was announced in April 2024 by the Trudeau government. Unfortunately, it took until January 2026 before an agreement was reached and the funds could be released. It is an interesting program because it enables municipalities that want to develop a residential area to seek grants to invest in sewers, water systems and roads. However, as long as Quebec City and Ottawa fail to reach an agreement and as long as Ottawa wants to impose conditions in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, it will delay things.”
“It would take an additional $1.5 billion over five years for municipal infrastructure. So there are several things we can do. There is hope, provided the government takes action. We also believe that the federal government should transfer all of the funding for housing to Quebec with no strings attached. Quebec has already set up an affordable housing program, and we think that the federal government should contribute to it directly. Until these things happen, the Bloc Québécois will work to streamline federal programs and try to ensure that they align with those of Quebec so that the money goes where it should, to housing for Quebeckers. In order to give hope to our young people and respond to their legitimate aspirations, we need to resolve the alignment issues between Quebec and Ottawa.”
“When my group of friends and I in the Gaspé were in our 20s, no matter what work we did, it was obvious that we would become homeowners. We were going to work and buy a house. The size could vary, but access to a property was not really an issue in the early 2000s. Now, it absolutely is. These young people feel a sense of injustice that I understand and that we must address. Let us talk about hope. There is hope; there are solutions out there. There are a multitude of programs that already exist, and the government could invest more in them. We believe that an additional $7 billion should be invested over five years in the rapid housing initiative, and an additional $1.7 billion over five years to address homelessness, which is half of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said would be needed to reduce this tragedy by 50%.”
“The average rate has risen from 2.5% in 2020 to over 7% in 2023. When they were 25, baby boomers could easily buy a home. With just one or two modest incomes, they could make a down payment, and the payments generally represented one-third of their income. Today, young people need to save for 14 to 20 years to make a 20% down payment. Even with lower interest rates, the absolute price of housing is 10 to 15 times higher when adjusted for inflation. However, incomes have not increased 10 to 15 times. Rather, they have increased two to three times since the 1980s. The result is that, without significant parental assistance, buying a home at age 25 is often impossible for the majority of young people. Even for me, as someone who is not a baby boomer, it was easy to do that as soon as I started working.”
“People are so desperate that 10% of student tenants report sharing a one-bedroom apartment with two other people. Worse still, unemployment among young people aged 15 to 24 soared to nearly 14% in December 2025. It reached a peak of 14.7% in September 2025. That was the highest rate in 15 years. Youth homelessness has also been on the rise in recent years. An estimated 20% of homeless people in Canada are between the ages of 13 and 24. There are 6,000 young people experiencing homelessness every night, and 35,000 young people experiencing homelessness over the course of a year. This is a generation that is facing challenges, often unable to find housing, deeply in debt, or stuck in precarious employment. Now let us talk about intergenerational justice. Mortgage debt remains overwhelming.”
“Madam Speaker, as I talk about housing, I would like to also broach the subject of young people, justice and hope. First, let us talk about our young people. They are buckling under the weight of a triple crisis: unaffordable housing, crushing debt and unemployment, which is two times higher than other generations. In fact, 59% of people under 35 report having serious housing problems. That figure is 38% for the rest of the population. Rents are skyrocketing. The cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Quebec has increased by nearly 8%, while average salaries have only increased by 4.5%. The average income of students in Quebec is approximately $16,500 per year, and they spend an average of $11,220 on housing. That does not leave much at the end of the month.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for me to speculate on what is motivating my colleagues' position on our motion. I think the general idea is that this is a great project and we want everything to be great. Nevertheless, we have to be very careful in life. It is like when someone wants to build something and is too hasty. I believe that we are the voice of reason in all of this, and perhaps this is not welcomed. We are saying that we want to get things done, but they have to be done properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from eastern Quebec and I often talk about trains. We are currently discussing high-speed rail, this major project, but there is also the problem of Via Rail's passenger train service, which I think both of us are concerned about, but that is a separate issue. On the issue of cost, obviously that is a point that deserves to be raised and studied. If we go too fast, without taking the time to do things right, we run the risk of waking up to a disaster, as happens all too often. At the end of the day, however, we believe that investing in mass transit is necessary.”
“Mr. Speaker, if anything, I wish that my colleague were right and that this were all made up, because I would be less concerned for the people over there. Some mayors are now saying that they are not being consulted. That is a fact. What does Bill C-15 do? It exempts the project from a number of protections that were enshrined in law. These are legitimate concerns, and it worries me when my colleague dismisses them out of hand because her party is in power. This tells me that they lack sensitivity, perhaps even intellectual curiosity.”
“We like the idea of high-speed rail too, but we cannot bring ourselves to applaud along with them and dismiss the very legitimate concerns of people on the ground, who were told the news. We are told that consultations are in progress. What we are seeing are happy hours and immersive experiences. They tell us that they want to make it festive. It may appear that way, but the lack of sensitivity is glaring. Finally, our motion today is simply to say that things need to be done the right way to prevent human tragedies. That is how progress is achieved, and that is how we move forward as a society toward the common good.”
“It prevents a lot of activities from being undertaken. That is the problem with this initiative. We are told that things will be imposed and sped up, but there are people who will suffer injustices and who will be unable to take steps to develop their property. Furthermore, apparently, all that can obviously be done by email, which it is also faster. We could use a bailiff, because when we need a serious thing done, we send in a bailiff. Once again, however, it is more complicated and more expensive, but it provides assurance that people were served their documents by hand. Here, however, people are going to receive notice of their eviction by email. That just shows how seriously we take the process. We are very sorry to dampen the Liberals' enthusiasm for high-speed rail.”
“Sections 9 and 10 of the Expropriation Act require the responsible minister to hold public hearings on a proposed expropriation in the event of opposition. However, Bill C‑15 will exempt Alto from holding this public hearing and will also exempt it from having to obtain the consent of cabinet in order to decide to expropriate. Will this speed things up? Of course it will. Does it increase the risk of error and injustice? Yes. Next, there are work prohibitions. That is worth noting. Once Alto has expropriated land, it will be able to request a prohibition on work. We are concerned about this, and some citizens are concerned as well. Suppose I live in the 10‑kilometre‑wide corridor—10 kilometres is wide—and I have work to do on my property, or I need to invest in my farm business or something else. With a work prohibition, I cannot.”
“It is not playing political games to say that the people of Mirabel are concerned. It brings back memories of Mirabel in the 1960s, when 97,000 acres were expropriated when only 15 were needed. Alto will be allowed to expropriate land now and do the environmental assessment later. Will that speed things up? Of course it will. However, what will end up happening is that after expropriation and assessment, the conclusion may be that the route should not pass through there because the impacts are too great. People will have already been expropriated, and Alto will end up with land that it does not need. This brings back memories, and that is what members on the other side do not seem to understand. Another Liberal innovation is public hearings.”