Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to participate in your committee meeting today and join my voice to others to explain how the Liberal government's new policies launched by the radical Minister of the Environment and Climate Change could harm my area, the greater region of Lévis and Quebec City.
As you know, after the greater Montreal region, the greater Quebec City and Lévis metropolitan area is the second largest economic region in Quebec. This region boasts Highway 20 on the south side, which must be connected to Highway 40 on the north side. There's also Highway 73, on a north-south axis, which runs from the United States all the way to the greater Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
The Quebec City region is therefore a hub. When we hear that there will be no more major road projects, it causes great concern, especially about the third link, which would be very important for the future.
The demographics of the greater Quebec City metropolitan region are currently exploding. As the region offers great business opportunities, its population could therefore experience a sharp increase over the next 20 years. We even think it could double. In our region, it's still possible to find affordable land and build at affordable prices too. If the population increases, road traffic will inevitably increase as well.
That said, the Quebec government has asked the infrastructure division of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec to conduct an exhaustive study on the possibility of a third link. The message sent by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Mr. Guilbeault, will no doubt be taken into account in the report that the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec will present to the Quebec government in June on the feasibility of a third link. This is of major importance, because it sends out a signal that the federal government will not support major road infrastructure projects in the future. This could lead the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's infrastructure division to redefine the entire cast of its report, which would be very harmful for my greater region as well as, indirectly, for the future of Quebec.
Mr. Guilbeault's vision is his own. It's a vision that his government has endorsed, according to the Prime Minister, who told the House that there would be no third link. For an infrastructure project that crosses the river, federal jurisdiction is required. Yet Minister Guilbeault has already said that an environmental study by Environment Canada that would favour a third link would not be accepted as long as he is Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
All of these factors combined could lead the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec to submit an unfavourable report to the Quebec government. This would indefinitely delay a truly important project for the economic development of the greater national capital region, Quebec City, the city of Lévis, and the entire greater Chaudière-Appalaches region, which I so proudly represent along with some of my Conservative colleagues. In the long term, it would be very harmful indeed.
We have two bridges in the region that require very major repairs. Over the next 10 years, these repairs will regularly lead to lane reductions. With the two bridges, the maximum number of cars that can cross the river is currently around 140,000 per day. According to forecasts for 2035-40, we'll need infrastructure capable of handling 250,000 cars a day. It takes between three and seven years to plan and build a bridge. As you can see, delivery of the third link will be eagerly awaited around 2030-32. So it's important to take the right direction today and get the right signal from a responsible government when it comes to major road infrastructure, for the future of our country and the province of Quebec.
That said, I won't delay the work. I would like us to return to the very important motion from my colleague Mr. Strahl, which I will support. It's really important to know where the federal Liberal government is going. It doesn't look like the direction the Conservatives would have liked. We don't necessarily have the same vision. You can't run a country the same way you run a big city. The reality is that our country is a very large territory. As people will continue to move across this vast territory for many decades to come, if not hundreds of years, we have to be realistic and take into account the future of our country when we draw up policies. If we want a better future, we have to allow people to move around our country.
I'll yield the floor to the next person who wishes to speak.