Debates of May 9th, 2024

Report Stage

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by suggesting that the government put things back the way they found them.

I have a suggestion for him, and that is to put things back the way they were in the 1960s, 1970s or earlier, before we started seeing rising temperatures and the damage that was causing.

Does my colleague have any idea how much climate inaction costs?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people continuously talk about the inaction on climate, but that is not the point I was talking about. I was talking about all the innovations we have made in agriculture and in our energy sector to lower our emissions. We should be a guiding light for innovation and technology in those sectors. The last barrel of oil on earth should be drilled in Canada because we have environmental standards, labour standards and human rights standards that are better than those of other oil-producing countries.

Canada produces 1.5% of the world's emissions, and of Canada's 1.5% of emissions, agriculture accounts for 10%. We are leading the world. There is a great study by the Global Institute for Food Security that I wish all of my colleagues would read because, compared to all other jurisdictions that produce what we do, we have the lowest emissions per bushel on earth.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I love the narrative by Conservatives about the total emissions of Canada compared to globally. Now I would encourage the member to tell the House what the per capita emissions of Canadians are, because they are a lot higher than those of the vast majority of other countries in the world.

While the member is at it, perhaps he could inform the House what the Conservative plan is when it comes to addressing climate change, because we hear nothing. All we hear is the Leader of the Opposition say is that they believe in technology, but that means nothing.

What is the Conservative plan?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to talk about what we have contributed to the world.

What the member fails to understand is that we also produce a lot that helps feed the world. We produce the wheat, barley, peas, lentils and other crops that feed millions of people around the world, and we have to export them around the world. The fact that the member cannot comprehend that we are an exporting economy and thus that our emissions would be a little higher is, quite frankly, not surprising.

Second, we have the natural gas that could displace Russian gas for our partners so they would not continue to feed a war machine. That would also increase our emissions a bit, but it would lower global emissions. Third, if he wants to find out about our environmental plan, call an election and we will run on it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I would ask people who want to have conversations to go out into the antechamber so that the House can continue its work.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be a New Democrat today and every day, as we stand in the House firmly on the side of the right to choose, and to treat the illegal toxic drug crisis with compassion and facts. This is the complete opposite of the Conservatives' ideologies that are harmful and their arguments that are lacking in facts and compassion.

Tonight as we discuss the fall economic statement, I am proud to stand here as a new Democrat with a leader, the member for Burnaby South, who is willing to name corporate greed in the House of Commons while the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to protect big corporations that are gouging Canadians at the cash register. That is a major driver of inflation and hardship for Canadians.

The Conservative opposition frames itself as an alternative to the Liberals, but the corporate-controlled Conservatives are no better than the sitting Liberals. They too believe the market will fix every problem, even though it is a fact that unbridled corporate greed is driving up the cost of food, housing and gas. When it comes to housing, this market-driven ideology has resulted in record displacements and homelessness across Canada, even among seniors who should be safely retired in their home.

There is no way to solve the housing crisis with market solutions alone. The federal government, in the mid-1990s, stepped away from producing non-market housing, and it has created a crisis that is accelerating and getting worse. Simply freeing up Crown land and handing it off to developers to do what they will is not going to solve the problem.

The finance committee heard from home developers, financiers and real estate people that the market is not going to solve the problem. That is not to say that we do not need more market housing, but it is to say that we want to see the government focus specifically on non-market housing, which has been neglected for years and absolutely must return in a significant way. We must do this; the government must do this in order for us to solve the housing crisis.

It is a problem with the current government and will be a problem with any future Conservative government because the parties share the same market-driven ideology. The Liberals must address corporate greed. The leader of the NDP has given them the road map through his bill, the lower prices for Canadians act. The Liberals need to act on it immediately.

Another thing the government must do is legislate corporations that want to invest in Canada and create jobs in Canada, particularly in the natural resource sector. The natural resource sector is experiencing a rebirth, and there is an expectation by New Democrats that it is going to be creating good union jobs in that rebirth. That is why I am very proud of the labour conditions that are attached to the investment tax credits in the fall economic statement. The legislation would implement those labour conditions for companies investing in Canada. This generation of young Canadians needs good union jobs. New Democrats want investments in Canada from companies that respect their employees and are prepared to pay their workers well.

Too often in Canada, the governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have accepted a situation where they are happy to have companies come in and compete on the cost of labour, have a competition about who can pay the least to do a job. I am very proud to say that with the legislation in the fall economic statement, we would be implementing for the first time ever, because of the NDP, conditions on an investment tax break that centres workers in the middle of it and has an apprenticeship requirement. In the long term, employers with foresight see the value of passing on training and knowledge and of creating a workforce they can avail themselves of, but we know there are employers that do not have that strategy, and that is why we need legislation.

I want to come back to housing because it is an important topic. In the fall economic statement, the recapitalization that was much touted by the government as its action on the urgent housing crisis was back-loaded, meaning it will not be coming for another two years. This is particularly shameful when we consider that the territory of Nunavut alone has been asking on an urgent basis for $250 million to address the housing crisis.

Since the economic statement was first tabled, the AFN has estimated that the infrastructure gap for the first nations, Métis and Inuit communities has reached over $400 billion. Alongside that, it was rumoured before the recent budget was tabled that the government was contemplating deep cuts at Indigenous Services Canada. New Democrats fought hard to prevent that, but investments by the government continue to fail indigenous peoples.

I want to come back to the question of the role large corporations are playing in driving up the cost of living in Canada. A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as recently as December 2021 said that 1% of Canada's population owns and controls 25% of all the wealth in this country, and the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada share just 1% of all of the wealth that is produced in Canada. This is not fair.

What has happened since the year 2000 is that the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1% has increased exponentially. That needs to change. The big hole in government revenue comes from the people in the top 1%, who are walking away with much more of Canada's overall wealth than they used to because they pay significantly less tax than they used to. Their tax rates are unrealistically low. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let the people at the top off the hook from having to pay their fair share. That inequity needs to be fixed.

I will close by saying Canadians are working hard, playing by the rules and doing everything right, but life is getting harder. It does not have to be this way. New Democrats are working for the people. In the bill, there are stricter competition rules that would lower food prices, investment tax credits that would drive higher-paying jobs and measures that would lower rents, with a $16 billion investment in affordable housing funds and apartment construction loans.

It is not as strong as the investment the NDP would make, but so much much better than what the Liberals would have done on their own, and the Conservatives have shown over and over again that they side with their wealthy donors and give them the tax breaks they lobby for.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the way the member started off her speech today, by talking about the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body.

Unfortunately the House has been under assault over the last few days, with the member for Peace River—Westlock talking about preborn children. He and the member for Yorkton—Melville today spoke on the front lawn to an anti-abortion rally, where the member for Yorkton—Melville said, “The truth is not being told in the general media, or in our House of Commons, about what abortion really does to your heart and mind and your soul and your body, let alone to that life that is lost.” She went on to say, “We in the House [of Commons], as Conservatives, stand for equality between women and men from the instant of conception.”

I am wondering whether my NDP colleague has had an opportunity to reflect on what has happened over the last week, from the Leader of the Opposition's comments about using the notwithstanding clause to the member for Peace River—Westlock's comment and to now what is being said on the front lawn of Parliament.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to echo the comment that was made by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre today: “Keep your hands off our uterus.”

Just before my speech in the House today, a Conservative stood up and asked us to roll back the clock. I am very concerned about how far back the Conservatives are willing to roll back that clock.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, a little while ago, the member put up on social media an idea that in order to fight climate change, all the indoor hockey rinks in Canada should be shut down. Not only is that extremely un-Canadian, but it also is a radical proposal that would just destroy the heart of what it means to be Canadian. What other radical and extreme ideas does she have for fighting climate change that would be extremely un-Canadian and would destroy the way of life of people?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad this question came up because the Conservatives have a really hard time with facts, and what the member said is unequivocally untrue. I have never said anything about hockey.

I think what is important is how much time Conservatives spend on social media, making ridiculous memes and lowering the tone in this House. We are talking about the fact that they want to roll back rights for people who have a uterus. That will happen if the Conservatives ever become government in this country.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been paying keen attention to gas prices in my riding. From February to March of this year, the price jumped by 30¢ a litre, from $1.59 to $1.89. When the British Columbia carbon tax came into effect on April 1, it jumped up by only three cents. Only a week later, it jumped up a further 10¢.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the extreme disconnect the Conservatives have over their obsession with the carbon tax and completely ignoring their political masters, the oil and gas lobby. They will not say a single word on behalf of their constituents to confront their real masters in this place.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the oil and gas corporations and their CEOs are double-dipping. Not only are they taking subsidies from taxpayers, but they are gouging them at the pumps, and the Conservatives are letting it happen.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on many of the things she said. I know that in our discussions on Bill C-59, the Competition Act reforms, there was much collaboration between the Liberals and the NDP at committee. We took some of the NDP's suggestions and further strengthened the measures. I would ask her if she knows what is left to do on the Competition Act reforms as per her leader's bill.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I will say, since the Liberals are asking, is that it is time to break up the monopolies. It is time to break up the monopolies that are driving up cellphone bills and food prices in this country. They are not allowed in the United States. The Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, have let this flourish in Canada.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about Bill C‑59 for a long time, so I will get straight to the point.

There are both good things and bad things in the bill. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to it. I think that has been said. I have very strong feelings about one of the reasons we oppose it. The government is once again giving gifts to the oil industry.

For the umpteenth time, the government is kowtowing to this sector, giving it $30.3 billion in oil subsidies in the form of tax credits. As a result, taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, even though they do not need that money. What is more, the companies have no intention of cutting production or undertaking projects that will help Canada meet its climate and environmental protection commitments. Quite the contrary.

Oil companies do not need this money, but they keep asking for it, and the government gives it to them. They have the most powerful and influential lobby, so the government always gives them whatever they want. From pandemic-era asks to arguments in favour of technologies that do not work and increasing deregulation, oil companies always end up with plenty of money.

In recent years, as the pandemic wound down, the oil extraction industry was posting record profits. It raked in $38 billion in 2022, and 2023 promises to be just as lucrative, though the figures are not yet available. Who benefits from these returns? It is the shareholders, 70% of whom are foreign. That is a lot of capital leaving Canada.

The current government's budgets are loaded with goodies for this sector, with plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely intended for oil companies and totalling no less than $83 billion by 2035. The industry is thrilled. Two of the tax credits are tailor-made for the industry: a clean technology investment credit and a carbon capture and storage credit.

Let us start with clean technology. How are the oil companies going to get their hands on the lion's share of the $17.8‑billion pot of money earmarked for clean technology? Let me try to make this simple, but by no means simplistic. It takes a lot of energy to extract the molasses-like substance known as bitumen from the Alberta sands. Right now, the sector uses gas. Selling the gas is a lot more profitable, however, and that is what the oil companies would prefer. The good news is that after punching through Wet'suwet'en territory for the Coastal GasLink project, a new Shell and LNG Canada methane port will make the dream of exporting gas a reality within about a year. This is where the genius of clean technology comes in. Everyone supports it. Everyone believes in it. Just tack on the word “clean”, “green” or “sustainable” and problem solved, the Government of Canada will mind its own business.

With this subsidy to enable the extraction of this toxic molasses to continue and even increase, Bill C‑59 will pay oil companies to buy small modular reactors or SMRs. These are nuclear reactors. The energy from the SMRs will replace the gas that oil companies are currently using, so that they can extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense and especially for their own profit. I am not making this up. It is really well thought out. We still do not know all of the characteristics of the radioactive waste that these SMRs produce, and yet oil companies will be using them in a context where Canada still has no control over the governance of such waste. It is a real model of cleanliness on all counts. Excuse me if I laugh.

For the fervent soldiers across the aisle who might try to tell me that we know that the clean technology tax credit will also benefit renewable energy, no, that is not true. First, there is no qualifying limit for this tax credit. In other words, the astronomical costs of the SMRs are going to drain the allotted budget, leaving very little for the other manufacturing sectors. This is expected to cost the public treasury $17.8 billion by 2035, according to estimates from the Department of Finance. Despite the repeated requests from my esteemed colleague, the member for Joliette, the government has not seen fit to provide the Standing Committee on Finance with a breakdown of the numbers to help us calculate how much of the money would go to the oil companies.

So much for Canada the champion, the leader of leaders, and its much-touted transparency.

What can I say about the carbon capture and storage investment tax credit? There is a lot to say. I talk about it often, but I will reiterate a few points.

I will begin with the fact that the government says that the $13‑billion carbon capture and storage investment tax credit will be available to every major emitter, such as cement plants and steel mills, but that is not true. It is pretty obvious that it is available only to oil and gas producers. There is nothing for Quebec's major emitters, unless the intended message is that Quebec should just produce oil and gas. No thanks. Legislation was voted on for this.

A 2022 Pembina Institute report entitled “Waiting to Launch” shows that, despite making record profits, the oil sands industry is not investing in decarbonization efforts in accordance with its climate commitments. The infamous Pathways Alliance is publicly calling for easily available measures such as process improvement, energy efficiency and electrification. Again, the oil and gas industry has more than enough money to put these measures in place. However, its priority is buying back shares and paying dividends.

The federal government fell into the industry's trap. In my opinion, the government saw it coming, but fell for it anyway. Pathways Alliance's game plan depends entirely on major investments by the federal government. Essentially, it sees consumers as the ones responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it makes the federal government responsible for the costs of carbon capture projects. This is an industry that is transferring all the risks and costs of the transition to the public. It is putting the burden on the shoulders of taxpayers and consumers.

The United States is not always a good model, far from it. However, our southern neighbours seem to be wising up to the truth a bit faster. In fact, just last month, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget and the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability published a joint report stating that “[t]he companies' massive public-facing campaigns portray [carbon capture and storage] as a viable and available solution to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but the companies acknowledge internally that they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis”. Clearly, these companies know what they are doing. The report also states, “The industry's true goal is to prolong, perhaps indefinitely, the unabated use of fossil fuels”.

There is something deeply disturbing about the federal government's fiscal trajectory. Bill C‑59 and Bill C‑69 share a connection. I will briefly explain.

Bill C‑69 creates a clean hydrogen investment tax credit and sets out the terms and conditions. When the government announced it in 2023, it estimated that it would total $17.7 billion by 2035. It is a refundable tax credit. Even if the company pays no tax, it is entitled to the refund.

With Bill C‑69, the government will cover between 15% and 40% of the investment costs required to produce hydrogen. We are talking about green hydrogen, a net-zero energy source. Costs are still prohibitive. Right now, hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is good for the companies, because it creates another market for their gas. As a result, even if gas consumption were to stagnate, they could continue to increase production if they converted their gas into hydrogen.

The oil and gas industry's agenda is well crafted, Machiavellian even, because it covers all the angles. Still, one would have to be deaf or blind, or both, to not notice and take action. Either the government is drinking the Kool-Aid the industry has been serving at the hundreds of lobbying meetings they have had, or it is collaborating with the industry.

I will close by saying that if oil companies dip into the first pot, Bill C‑59, for carbon storage in gas extraction, they can then get even more out of the second pot for converting that same gas at taxpayers' expense. That is bad for the energy transition, but it is a dream come true for freeloaders.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of rhetoric in this House from the Conservatives about declining productivity. That is of no surprise when the oil and gas industry in Canada, one of the largest contributors to the economy, is not reinvesting in R and D, is not reinvesting in innovation, but instead is skimming profits and redistributing them to wealthy shareholders.

I am wondering what the member thinks about that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I said in my speech, they have no intention of meeting their greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. They say they do, but look at what the United States found out.

It seems clear to me that oil and gas companies in Canada definitely do not want to stop production. The money is for their shareholders, and most of those shareholders are foreign companies. Wonderful. Capital is leaving the country, yet we kowtow to oil companies, promising them billions of dollars.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. The government worked collaboratively and very closely with Bloc and NDP members to strengthen the provisions within the Competition Act that deal with products that claim to be sustainable and also general claims that companies may make. I think those provisions in the Competition Act really prevent against greenwashing and ensure that companies have to substantiate and have evidence for the claims they make.

Could the member opposite speak to whether she supports that and whether she will be supporting Bill C-59 as a result?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member knows the Bloc Québécois's position on that. Yes, there have been improvements and we are not saying that we need to start from scratch. We never said that. What we are saying is that it does not make sense to be giving oil companies billions of dollars, like we are doing now.

It is funny because we were talking about greenwashing recently at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner gave a really good definition of it in one of his reports. It is a shame that I do not have it here with me, but I will give an example of greenwashing. Whether we are talking about carbon capture and storage for oil companies or the much-talked-about SMRs, it is ridiculous to think that nuclear energy is clean energy. That is absolutely ridiculous. Nuclear energy has never been clean energy. The more elected members buy into that idea, the further we will sink into another form of greenwashing.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech on the environment. It was very clear and straightforward.

I would like to ask her the following question. Does she see any interference in Bill C-59 and does she see even more of it in Bill C-69?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She also made a good speech, in which she spoke about the billions of dollars going to oil companies.

We need to look at the root of government interference, which is fiscal imbalance. What does that mean? First, Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs. Second, Ottawa uses that financial leeway to interfere in areas outside its jurisdiction. That is exactly what the government is doing with Bill C-59 and Bill C-69.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it himself: If the trend continues, eventually the provincial governments, including Quebec, will be virtually bankrupt, while the federal government will see its revenues increase.

What will the result be? The federal government will be able to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa's hands. That is one of the many reasons why we will be voting against these two bills.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there seems to be so little interest in the fall economic statement, that I do not think there is quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member knows full well there are no quorum calls at this point. If he would like, I can send him the document so he does not have to raise the point of order again.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots.

Once again, it is clear that the Liberal government is trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs and fantasizing about taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it and in which it has no expertise. Why? Maybe it is trying to justify its existence and appear relevant. Budget 2024 and this bill are perfect examples of that. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑59. Let me say this loud and clear: The federal government's unabashed assault on Quebec's jurisdictions is scandalous.

By choosing to create a federal department of municipal affairs, which it calls the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, Ottawa is announcing yet more interference in how Quebec runs its internal affairs. The size of the public service has jumped by 42%, or 109,000 public servants, and the tax burden has increased by $20 billion, but the Liberal government wants to make the public service even bigger, doubling its army of highly paid public servants, whose thankless task it will be to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and who will give the federal government the organizational capacity to impose even more conditions on Quebec and municipalities.

It is readily apparent that this massive public servant hiring campaign will make it easier to coordinate the centralization of power and decision-making in Ottawa. The father of the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, tried a similar approach when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. The experiment was a dismal failure. As the saying goes, like father, like son. We need the humility to learn from our past mistakes in order to avoid repeating them.

As a proud regionalist and elected official in a riding that includes 39 municipalities and three regional county municipalities, commonly known as RCMs, I know what I am talking about. Many of them are already having a hard time getting what they are owed from the federal government, because of funding that never arrives on time or cuts in financial support for the cultural sector, for example. Why complicate the process with more delays, costs, disputes and even more delays? Municipalities need fast, effective and direct action to address the various issues. They are the ones that deliver services most directly to the public. The federal government, however, is doing the exact opposite by adding more layers of red tape that will only increase costs and lengthen delays.

I should also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said, about federal services, “public services themselves appear to have deteriorated. Not all of them are at the level one would expect from the public service.” Do my fellow citizens really want the federal government to manage more things? Well, no.

The really sad thing about this part of Bill C‑59 is that the Liberals are offering a solution that no one asked for instead of meeting expectations within their own areas of jurisdiction, and that is really detrimental. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the housing crisis we are currently experiencing, which is dragging on because of half measures that do not solve the problem, must be addressed quickly. People are suffering. Social housing in particular has been chronically underfunded since the 1990s, yet the federal government is not stepping up. Instead, it is trying to take even more responsibility despite its ineffectiveness and incompetence in other matters.

The vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.6%. A balanced market sits at 3%. That means it is almost impossible to find housing. Families are living in motels. It is disgraceful. It is not just in my riding, either. My colleagues and neighbours throughout the Lower St. Lawrence are in similar situations, with a rate of 0.7% in Rivière-du-Loup and 1.2% in Matane. The answer is simple. We are asking the federal government to stop trying to manage everything, to stop micromanaging, and to simply do what is expected of it, which is to transfer the money to the Quebec government, unconditionally. Then we can tackle the crisis and try to resolve it. The Bloc Québécois is not going to make concessions. We will stand firm.

Let us now talk about the second major concern that we have with this bill. While we want to do away with fossil fuels, the Liberals are reminding us that they are great allies of the oil companies by adding a $30.3-billion subsidy in the form of tax credits paid for by taxpayers. I am talking about the taxpayers who are watching us at home this evening. That $30.3 billion belongs to them. This is not really surprising. We know that Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's policy. The image that comes to mind is that of a firefighter arsonist.

In Rimouski, these same super wealthy companies are increasing the cost of gas for residents, sometimes by up to 20¢ overnight. They have a virtual monopoly and yet they are putting a huge burden on the shoulders of those who depend on their vehicles to get around, make a living and get to work. I already know that some members will tell me that those individuals can just use public transit to get around. They are right, but when the federal government abandons the regions to focus on large urban centres, then public transit in the regions is obviously not sufficient to offer a real alternative to vehicle use.

The Lower St. Lawrence has practically no trains or buses anymore. The number of weekly private bus departures has gone from 6,000 to 882 since 1981. That is an 85% drop. I met the heads of Via Rail recently. They told me that the trains that go to Rimouski have been in service since the 1950s or 1960s, that the rail cars are at the end of their useful life and that these lines will have to be shut down in a few years if the federal government does not invest in them soon. That means we are going to lose one of our last links to the rest of Quebec if the government continues to do nothing. This situation has been going on for too long. Budget 2024 was not the boost we were looking for to save the regional connections.

I get the impression that we are going backward. Our ancestors who built the railway must be rolling over in their graves looking at their descendants shutting it down, when we do not even have an alternative in place. Is the federal government waiting to swoop in at the last minute like a hero at the risk of further isolating the regions?

I will not get into the fact that there are virtually no flights in the regions. The wonderful corporate citizens at Air Canada took advantage of the public health crisis to cease their operations in June 2020 and they never came back to our region, or to the Mont-Joli regional airport, more specifically.

As a result of all of these transportation problems, some of my constituents now even have to take a taxi to Quebec City to get hospital services. I hold the federal government responsible for that, because it is refusing to abide by its agreement to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs, which compromises access to health care and the development of these kinds of services in the regions.

Now, if the billions of dollars earmarked for oil companies had instead been allocated to transportation, imagine how much the government could have actually improved the situation. We see that the government's priorities are not always in the right place and that the regions still do not matter to the Liberals. They basically never do.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-59, which both encroaches on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and demonstrates the full extent of the Liberal government's hypocrisy. There has never been a more centralizing government. I get the impression that it wants to revise the definition of a confederation. We are no longer in a confederation; we are under a central government that wants to appropriate all the powers and change the rules of the game without consulting the players. I would even go so far as to say that the rules of the game are constitutional agreements. We cannot take it lightly when agreements with partners are not being upheld. The government claims to want meaningful collaboration with its partners, yet it does not even respect its own agreements with its so-called partners.

Moreover, we will not support the creation of a department whose main task will be to interfere more aggressively in Quebec's jurisdictions and double the government's army of public servants. Nor will we support the $30.3 billion subsidy to ultrarich oil companies that will undoubtedly compromise our ecosystems and slow down the energy transition that Quebec is spearheading.

That concludes my speech. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues.