Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 11.
“Once again, I believe that the rules should be the same for everyone. This is a major victory, which I am looking forward to celebrating once we have completed our study here and once the Senate has given its approval. We believe that everyone in Canada should be able to practise the religion or life philosophy of their choice without any interference from the state and that the rules should be the same for everyone.”
“Members will recall the events that occurred in Montreal two and a half years ago—I do not recall the exact date—when a preacher, Adil Charkaoui, said, among other things, that all the enemies of Gaza should be identified and eliminated. We spoke out against that, but the Crown prosecutor determined that he could not lay charges under the current law. (1235) I would bet, rightly or wrongly, and I am not the only one, that if the religious exemptions in section 319 did not exist, this individual would have been tried and punished for a type of speech that nobody in either Quebec or Canada wants to hear. I was pleased that the religious exemption was eliminated, and I still feel this way. I will be all the more proud of our Criminal Code when these anachronisms are finally removed from it.”
“One prohibited the promotion of hatred and the other prohibited the promotion of anti-Semitism. However, both allowed for a reasonable defence if the promotion was done in good faith based on a belief in a religious text. The Bloc Québécois believed these provisions were antithetical. Indeed, I do not know of any case where someone can promote hatred or anti-Semitism in good faith. That does not exist, and there is a big problem if anyone thinks that that is possible. Good faith means equity. No one can promote hatred in good faith. The exemption was absurd, and it gave rise to a fair number of disjointed interpretations.”
“Unfortunately, in practice, in the laws, there are remnants of non-secularism, of giving precedence to religions, and we must work to overcome these obstacles. We said that the state must be secular and that the laws must be the same for everyone. I do not want to live in a society where Buddhists have rules, Catholics have rules, Jews have rules, and Muslims have rules. That is a no. I believe that in Quebec, as in Canada, the state is secular; the laws are and must remain the same for everyone. Regardless of our religious beliefs or the languages we speak, regardless of our gender, race, or anything else, the rules must be the same for everyone. I am quite proud that we have adopted this provision in Bill C-9 . The previous section 319 had two exemptions, which came to be referred to as religious exemptions.”
“We talked about it at length. In my opinion, the Conservatives sometimes presented their arguments in a rather clumsy way, to put it mildly, but they did so nonetheless. We listened to them. We kept arguing. We could not make any headway. We were in what I would call a deadlock. There were two sides. On one side were the Conservatives and certain religious lobby groups who believed that religion should take precedence over the law. No matter what the laws of men—let us call them that—say, religious rules had to take precedence. On the other side, there was the Bloc Québécois, who said no and that the secular nature of the state is important. We often say that the Quebec state, like the Canadian state, is secular.”
“These are important questions that we looked at, but we may not have looked closely enough. We could have gone further. Unfortunately, our committee had to deal with filibustering. The committee began its work last October and at the very start of the clause-by-clause review, it adopted the Bloc Québécois's proposal to eliminate the religious exemptions in the Criminal Code. It passed. I thought we were on the right track and that we would finish well before Christmas. Unfortunately, things dragged on. I do not necessarily want to blame the Conservatives. I understand that they have a base that is attached to certain things and that they want to defend that position. However, this has left us at an impasse since before Christmas, and we have been dithering over this issue of the religious exemption. We tried just about everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that we are in full agreement with Bill C‑9 . I am pleased to see that the finish line is finally in sight. We may finally pass this bill. I was starting to doubt we would ever get this far, given how long the committee meetings were taking. My colleague from Drummond just raised an important issue, namely access to places of worship. There is also the issue of the various insignia that may be prohibited. There were debates about that and witnesses who had things to say. We heard from some of them, but we could have heard more about where the line will be drawn and just how far the prohibitions will go in infringing on certain charter freedoms to protect others, such as freedom of religion or the freedom to live in peace and security. Where will the line be drawn?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-9 , an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.”
“However, there is already a law called the Sergei Magnitsky law. What will happen when people refer to a law that bears the same name as another law? That would cause confusion and we would be no better off. I think that, too, will have to be examined in committee. I will dispense with the details of the bill as a whole. It is interesting. It includes sanctions for renewing licences for companies that are influenced by foreign entities that are engaged in repression. There are many things we want to keep, but as I just said, there are parts of this bill that we will have to review in committee.”
“We are talking about the Special Economic Measures Act. That is its current name. The bill proposes to change the name to “An Act to provide for the imposition of economic measures against a person, entity or foreign state for grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption”. That is a bit of a complicated title. In fact, the proposed short title is the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. The long title is far too long and far too complicated. It will hardly ever be used. I would be very surprised to hear a lawyer stand up in court, address the judge and spend three minutes naming the law. The long name becomes useless at that point. People will use the short title instead.”
“We had some tough debates on this issue during the last Parliament, and I think it deserves careful consideration. I am not talking about paying close attention to lobbyists. It is important to hear from them because they will provide insight, but as a legislator, I need to hear the opinions of experts, people who know about these issues. These could be lawyers who deal with these situations or retired judges who have worked on these issues in these states. I think it will be important to do that. We would be remiss if we did not. Another proposed change in Bill C-219 that strikes me as somewhat questionable is a name change. Name changes are usually fairly straightforward. They appear uncomplicated and we usually approve them without too much discussion, but in this case, the name change could lead to confusion.”
“We need guidance from people who are familiar with this type of situation and who can ensure that we are making the right decisions and taking action where needed. There is also the matter of defining what a prisoner of conscience is in the bill. It refers to “an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs.” This too may seem exhaustive, but it deserves our consideration. We need to look carefully at whether we are really achieving the objective we want to achieve with this bill. Should the definition be broadened? Should it be narrowed or clarified? For example, when we talk about beliefs, perhaps we should define what beliefs are.”
“Here is the definition of transnational repression that appears in the bill: tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism. (1810) This definition seems to be quite broad, but it is worth asking whether it covers everything. I am not sure. Is what it does cover actually useful? I am not sure about that either. We will have to look at it carefully. I think this is indeed the kind of bill where we need to hear from experts.”
“The Bloc Québécois believes that in some cases it may be valid and in others it may not. However, before deciding whether or not to release the identities of political prisoners, we should first obtain the prior consent of their families. As the bill is currently worded, this information would be released unless the family objects. We think the opposite should happen. We should not wait for an objection. Before releasing the names of political prisoners, we should obtain permission from their immediate family. I think it would be wise to proceed in this manner, but this is the type of discussion that we will obviously have in committee. There is also the issue of varying definitions. The bill seeks to define transnational repression. That may seem obvious but, in reality, it may not be. I think we will have to look at that carefully.”
“Canada did the same in 2017. We agree on that. Bill C-219 revises these provisions, which, again, is not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to be careful. For example, it has been proposed that the names and status of political prisoners be published. For someone like Mr. Magnitsky, whom I just mentioned, who is imprisoned, his name and status could be disclosed, which might seem valid in many respects, but the problem is that those states that abuse their power tend to crack down on the families of individuals instead. For example, if a state takes action against one of its citizens in a way that is considered completely abusive, would we want that individual's family to be harassed or pressured? I think that would be a bad idea. We will have to look at this carefully in committee.”
“Bill C-219 proposes some key principles on which we cannot disagree, particularly when it comes to cracking down on states that abuse their power over political prisoners. Much has been said about the law that underpins all of these discussions, the Sergei Magnitsky law. Sergei Magnitsky, whom I would actually like to commend, was a Russian lawyer who was arrested for exposing fraud committed by Russian authorities. He was sent to prison where he died the following year. Three years after his death, a trial was held and he was found guilty of fraud. We cannot make this stuff up. This type of abuse is outrageous. It has been recognized pretty much everywhere around the world as an unacceptable and irregular deviation from the rule of law. The United States passed a bill and implemented a law that covers this type of situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could summarize my speech by saying yes, but also no, and sitting back down. However, I will try to go a bit further. Yes, we intend to support Bill C‑219 . This bill is, in fact, a repeat, if I may say so, of former Bill C‑281 , which died on the order paper in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved last year. However, it had previously received unanimous support here in the House of Commons at third reading. It is no surprise that we are announcing that we will support Bill C‑219. That being said, there are a few small changes that were made to this bill and that are worth studying in committee, perhaps even amended. That is why I am saying yes but also no. I am saying no to it as a whole, but yes to studying it in committee.”
“Do I take it, from this surge of passion for the law, that we will be able to make progress and pass Bills C‑14, C‑9 and C‑16 in the coming weeks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I commend his energy and his passion for the rule of law. That said, we do not agree with today's motion. That is obvious. I have said so several times already. My question relates to his passion for justice and the rule of law. Bill C‑14 is coming back to the House on Friday, I believe. Will our Conservative colleagues vote in favour, since I heard them say several times that it is a step in the right direction? Can we also hope that they will support Bill C‑9 , the combatting hate act, which will be studied in committee tomorrow? Afterwards, we will be looking at Bill C‑16 .”
“I see it as a good thing when I hear that members want to work and will stop filibustering. Does my colleague agree with me?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I also really enjoy working with her on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have, of course, read the Conservatives' motion. As I have said a few times since this morning, I am a bit disheartened by the motion because I do not think it is going anywhere. Still, I always try to find something positive, and I believe I have. I want to know whether my colleague agrees with me on something. We get the impression from this motion that our Conservative colleagues want to work on justice issues. That tells me that we may finally see an end to the filibustering and get some bills passed. Bill C‑14 passed. Tomorrow, we will be working on Bill C‑9 . Then, if all goes well, we will move on to Bill C‑16 next week.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' proposal seems like a step back in time. I feel like I am looking at proposals that could have come from the Harper government at the time. However, it is 10 years later and, personally, I want us to keep moving forward. I think we can benefit from some of the good things that were done by the previous government, but there are other things that are good now. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. In his opinion, does the current motion not set us back 10 or 15 years?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's remarks are always relevant. I know that newcomers to his riding encounter significant problems. Unfortunately, that is not my area of expertise, but criminal records should definitely be taken into account. An individual whose application for citizenship is being examined has a certain number of characteristics, and one of those is whether they have a criminal record. This should be taken into account, but it should not be the only criterion.”
“Until I have proof to the contrary, I will trust in the good faith of our Conservative and Liberal colleagues, and I invite everyone to work hard on these bills.”
“Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I would say that perhaps he should ask our Conservative colleagues that question. He is right about the fact that there has been some filibustering on Bill C-9 . I find that unfortunate, as I always do. Such tactics can be really harmful and prevent democracy from taking its course. I understand that we want to debate and make submissions and that we may spend one, two or three meetings hearing from witnesses and presenting arguments against a bill. That is fine. However, I find it unfortunate when members engage in filibustering, because it does not get us anywhere. I hope that we will not have to deal with such tactics when it comes to Bill C-16 .”
“Some good work has been done, and refusing to consider refugee claims from people who have been charged or convicted of crimes means taking away the courts' power to consider the human factor in specific cases.”
“Madam Speaker, I think anyone who says that the motion takes the human factor into account clearly did not read it. With all due respect to my colleague, I understand her point of view, but the motion calls for the government to bar people “convicted of serious crimes” and people “with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims” and to “end the practice of leniency” and “repeal bills C‑5 and C‑75 ”. That is a step backwards. We have moved forward since 2015. I know that, before 2015, we had a Conservative government whose bills were probably more in line with our Conservative colleagues' values, but we have done some work over the last decade. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
“However, the proposed approach, which is to lump everyone together and refuse to take into account each newcomer's circumstances, is not acceptable in the fair and democratic society we have created for ourselves.”
“That would have required judges to explain in their decisions what made the case in question unique and why the mandatory minimum should not be applied. However, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives agreed with my proposal, so unfortunately, we ended up with Bill C-5 as it now stands. The new bills, and more specifically Bill C‑16 , include a provision similar to the one I proposed. I look forward to its consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope we can improve the situation. Once again, the Conservatives' proposal is rather unfortunate. Fighting organized crime, extortion and fraud is laudable. It is a good thing.”
“I remember making some suggestions in committee, but they were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. That said, that is how democracy works, and that is what happened. Members will recall that we had no choice but to do away with many of the mandatory minimums because the Supreme Court found them to be unconstitutional. We had to sort of clean up the Criminal Code. The courts will never apply anything that is unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court said, so these sentences had to be removed from the Criminal Code. I proposed a change at the time. I proposed adopting mandatory minimums for certain crimes, such as those committed with a firearm, but allowing judges to make exceptions to them in extenuating circumstances.”
“Often, a diverted sentence better serves the interests of justice, the victim and society than sending someone to prison for the time prescribed by law. Diversion opens the door to measures other than a trial and conviction, which is a good thing. We supported that. We had asked the minister to divide Bill C-5 in two, with diversion in one bill and the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences in another, since they are two separate matters. The minister at the time refused to split up Bill C-5. We had to work on the bill as a whole, and we ultimately passed it. I think the bill's benefits outnumbered and outweighed its drawbacks. We had a problem with the mandatory minimums. We wanted to make some changes to those provisions, but unfortunately, we were unable to do so.”
“Let us steer clear of that trap, be sensible, trust our courts and avoid being too prescriptive. In a similar vein, this reminds me of the mandatory minimum sentence issue. We have been talking about Bill C‑5 . Our colleagues feel that Parliament should not have passed Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75 . I remember voting in favour of Bill C‑5, but that bill had two components. First, it repealed mandatory minimum sentences. Second, it established diversion measures for simple drug possession. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We believe that a young man or woman caught with a small amount of drugs in their pocket should face consequences. However, mandatory minimum sentences are a bit too much. I think such cases should be left to the courts to decide.”
“He was sentenced to all kinds of punishments that he never would have received here in Canada. (1130) Does this mean that, in the case of someone like Raif Badawi, too bad, so sad, the government does not care and would never let them in? Alternatively, is the government willing to consider each case on its merits and make informed decisions? I believe that is how the system works now, and I prefer this humanized system with all its strengths and weaknesses. As a society, we decided that we would rather let a criminal go free than put an innocent person in prison. Yes, it would be easy to fill our prisons with suspects and say that is the way to reduce crime. That probably would reduce crime, but it would be a major step backward in terms of quality of life and respecting everyone's rights and freedoms.”
“Today's motion says that, going forward, no consideration will be given to all the circumstances of people who apply for refugee status and who have a criminal record or have been charged or convicted in their country of origin. With all due respect, I would say that is a bit lazy. I believe that the court needs to hear the entire case and take all the circumstances into account. Earlier on, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean very aptly mentioned the case of Raif Badawi, who was recognized here in Parliament not so long ago. I do not recall the exact wording of that particular motion, but it recognized that he had a certain degree of credibility and was eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship. Raif Badawi was charged and convicted in his country of origin and was sentenced to lashes.”
“Personally, I much prefer human justice. I would rather have a judge, or a few judges, getting to hear all the evidence in each case and make decisions that are humane, that meet the legal criteria and follow the rules we have set for ourselves as a society, but that also show a modicum of human mercy when it comes to tailoring humane decisions to each case. That is more or less what the Supreme Court said in the Pham decision in 2013. It said that, to determine if a sentence is fair, the court must consider all the consequences it would have on the individual, in terms of their employment, their immigration status, their family and so on.”
“Among other things, a reference was made to the case law and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pham. However, that decision did not say that the consequences of a court decision on a newcomer's status or application for status should not be considered. It said that the entire situation, all the consequences, must be taken into consideration, and that is how it should be. We cannot, as MPs, mandate how decisions should be taken in the future and what criteria to apply. What our Conservative colleagues are proposing seems sort of like when someone gets AI to do their work. They can go on a computer, enter some conditions, criteria and reasons, and get AI to spit out the decision that will apply to so-and-so's case. That is one way to do things. I think it is unfortunate, but perhaps that is the way things are going.”
“Tomorrow, the committee will likely finish its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9 . That is another good thing, fighting hatred. Immediately afterwards, we will begin studying Bill C-16 . All of these bills will be useful in fighting crime, and I thank my colleagues from all parties for their work. In this motion, however, the Conservatives are raising the issue of extortion and seem to be attributing it to refugee claimants or immigrants. This is where I disagree. That is going a bit too far. I am not saying that refugees or newcomers are angels or that none of them have ever done anything wrong. That would be a bit naive. There are people of good faith and bad faith among both newcomers and people who have lived in Quebec and Canada for generations. We have to keep things in perspective.”
“Madam Speaker, I was saying that it is entirely valid and honourable to want to combat extortion. It has caused many problems in our society and, unfortunately, I suspect that we have not seen the end of it. However, we need to be clear-headed and make certain distinctions in order to be effective in our fight against extortion. The fight against crime is currently the subject of much debate at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We studied Bill C-14 in a panic. We rushed it through in three meetings, which I thought was a shame because it gave us little time to seriously consider the different provisions. We did manage, I think, to come up with something that will be useful and I commend my Conservative colleagues and my Liberal colleagues on their collaboration on this bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I applaud our Conservative colleagues' efforts to combat extortion. That is a good thing; we all agree on that. However, we in the Bloc Québécois believe that the measures proposed make no sense. Certain distinctions must be made—”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is always so insightful, for his question. Yes, of course there is a contradiction. The government tells us not to worry, because it will consult with the people and everything will be fine. Yet the same government, under a closure motion, decided to pass legislation that allows it to bypass all the protective measures we have put in place. They are bypassing these measures, they are allowing Alto to do so, and we are being told not to worry because they are going to consult the people. Are they taking us for fools? Let us take a look back. Since the past is supposed to be an indication of what the future holds, I must say that it is quite worrying when you look at what happened in Mirabel.”
“Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I believe my colleague is a member of a first nation, which may explain why he thinks it is so important not to repeat the mistakes of the past and not—I do not want to use a bad word—to savagely expropriate property from people who have owned it for generations. Yes, there will be consultations. We are told that we can be sure of that and that people will attend. However, for now, no consultations have been scheduled in Mirabel. We are still waiting. The people of Mirabel are being told to watch the corridor. They are being told that that they are being targeted, that they will have to leave their homes and that no one knows how much they will be given, when this will happen or how it will be carried out. They are being told that there may or may not be expropriations. This is unacceptable.”
“I must be dreaming, Mr. Speaker. He is asking me what I am going to do to encourage my constituents to no longer endure the damage that the federal government has inflicted on them. We are clearly not on the same page. I am asking the government to apologize, to repair the damage that has been done and to commit to never making the same mistake again. I would also like to correct something I said. I will not be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, but with the member for Repentigny.”
“People have houses or farms there, but they can neither renovate nor mortgage nor sell their properties. Their hands are tied now that Alto has published their map on the website. We were talking about fearmongering earlier. There is no need for that; people can simply go on Alto's website and they will see the map. They will know that they are in the corridor. Cities like Boisbriand, Rosemère, Sainte-Thérèse, Mirabel—I will not name them all since I only have a few seconds left—are all impacted by that right-of-way. People cannot sell their homes. It is impossible to sell a house in a situation like this. Not a single bank will give a mortgage loan. Renovations make no sense. Why throw money down a bottomless pit? They need to be compensated and consulted, and we need to make sure not to repeat what happened in 1969.”
“I urge my colleagues to apologize, to acknowledge the trauma, to promise never to do it again and to compensate people. I do not have much time left, but I will talk about compensation. As it stands now, the high-speed rail project, which, as I said, we are very enthusiastic about, is unfortunately exempt from every landowner protection mechanism that exists in Quebec and Canada. Bills C-5 and C-15 throw them right out the window so that the promoters can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. Representatives from Alto said that they did not want to ask for too much, but that they wanted a 10-kilometre wide by 1,000-kilometre long right-of-way between Quebec City and Toronto to make sure that the rail line is in the right place. That is a 10-by-1,000-kilometre area where properties have not yet been expropriated.”
“Second, I would acknowledge the trauma that it caused, as several members have already, including the member for Mirabel a few moments ago. I would say that I recognize that trauma. Third, I would say that I think such a thing must never be allowed to happen again. I would therefore urge the government to be careful never to make the same mistake. I almost heard that, but the words “I apologize” were missing. It is not complicated. We teach our children to say it in preschool: When someone misbehaves at school or with their friends, they apologize. The people of Mirabel, the people of Quebec and I would go so far as to say the people of Canada expect a greater show of responsibility from their federal government. I fail to understand why we cannot do that.”
“It seems to me that, when someone does something like this, it is fairly easy to admit that a mistake was made, especially considering 85% of the land has been given back and the airport has been shut down. The mistake is obvious, in any case. Third, we are asking the government to commit to not doing it again, to not undertaking such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation. What is so terrible about this motion? If I were a Liberal member, I would hurry to say that my government, the government I inherited, that is, the Liberal government at the time, made a ridiculous mistake and it apologizes. If I were a Liberal member, I would say that I apologize on behalf of my government and on behalf of the Canadian government of 1969. I would think that would be the first thing to do.”
“In the moment, as they were speaking, I was happy. I was saying to myself that they understand that this was a terrible thing that must not be repeated. I was happy about that. The member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles was telling us about trauma, although I do not recall her exact words. Her father took her to visit a plot of land. Hearing that, I thought that they are on the same page as the rest of us, that they realize that what was done was not right, that it was cruel. That is reassuring. The Bloc Québécois motion is simple. We are not talking about high-speed rail. First, we want Parliament to ask the government to apologize. When someone messes up that badly, the least they can do is apologize. Second, we want the government to recognize the trauma that its extraordinarily awful mistakes caused to these people.”
“I do not know who the genius was who came up with that idea, but that was a nasty blow the federal government dealt to the people of Mirabel. (1330) Over the course of 35 years, billions of dollars of our own money were spent to build an airport, compensate people whose lands were ruthlessly and needlessly expropriated, and then demolish the airport by paying even more billions of dollars. This whole adventure cost us a pretty penny, not just in terms of money, but also in terms of tragedies involving people, families and companies. It is no wonder that the people of Mirabel have been left traumatized. Some may say that they are overly sensitive. I encourage my colleagues to go back and listen to the stories we heard, because, even after all this time, it is mind-boggling. I listened to our Liberal colleagues.”
“It is tragic to see that we did not even need that airport, after the people of Mirabel were told that the expropriation was for the public good, that they were participating in the history of Quebec and Canada, that their land was being taken, but that they were pioneers and heroes and that, thanks to their land, the nicest and most efficient and effective airport in the world would be built. In 2004, the government said that it was wrong about that too and that it was closing the airport, and the airport was indeed shut down. When asked what would happen with the flights, the government said that they would go back to Dorval. To add insult to injury, the Dorval airport was renamed the Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport. It was the ultimate show of disrespect.”
“Some of them took out mortgages and bought back their land, while other properties were bought back by different people. We are not talking about small parcels of land here. It was not a matter of expropriating a few extra acres and saying that they were going to put them back on the market. No, it turns out that 85% of these football-field-sized properties were not needed. The federal government admitted as much in 1985, 15 years after kicking everyone out. Fifteen years later, the government said that it had made a mistake, but did not even apologize. The government said that it made a mistake and was going to put the land up for sale. That, too, is obviously a tragedy.”