Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about acting responsibly. I would like him to explain to me whether he feels that it is responsible to provide billions of dollars in subsidies to the only industry or one of the few economic sectors that is not subject to tariffs, when some industries and economic sectors are currently suffering as a result of the tariff war. Is it responsible to send billions of dollars, whether via Trans Mountain and Pacific link or through tax credits to the tune of $100 billion, which we all pay for as a society, to an economic sector that is making record profits? I would remind the House that the oil and gas industry will make an estimated $90 billion in profits in 2026. This is all for an industry that is 60% American-owned and sells 90% of its products to Americans. Once again, this is an economic sector that is not affected by tariffs. The projects will be not be ready for another 12, 13, 14 or 15 years, so they will have no impact on the tariff war. Does he think these are responsible initiatives that will have an impact right now?

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my highly esteemed colleague. The Bloc Québécois proposed a more targeted mechanism in which the excise tax on diesel would be credited for people who use it as an input when the price of diesel in a given quarter exceeds the price from the same quarter of the previous year by a certain number of percentage points. If the rate is set at 20%, for example, a 20% increase in prices compared with the same period in the previous year would automatically result in a refund for businesses and entrepreneurs affected by higher operating costs. This mechanism could be permanent, and it would be extremely easy to fund. In fact, my friend's leader has always said that he is against corporate welfare. The biggest example of corporate welfare in this country is the oil and gas industry. Hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are being used to subsidize it. If we got rid of just those subsidies, everyone would be happy, and the Bloc Québécois proposal would lower the price of diesel. Would my friend support such a proposal?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech. He mentioned the sovereign wealth fund, which the government refers to as the Canada Strong fund. We do not seem to hear anything about this fund anymore. That lasted two or three days. When the Liberals announced this fund with great fanfare, they immediately compared it to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps my colleague can do a better job of explaining it than I can, but I think that the government misled the population by comparing the fund that it put in place to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia. Could my colleague briefly explain why those funds are different?

Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26. It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26. Even though the bill contains too few details for us to judge, the government refused to provide us with information or answer our questions for two months. These were two months wasted, and here we are studying the bill under a time allocation only a few days before summer. What is Bill C‑26? With only one clause, a person might think it insignificant, but that is far from true. The first subclause of this one-clause bill provides the following: The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion, for the purpose of improving housing supply. This is wonderful, but the second sentence, less so. The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance. The second subclause provides the following: Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate. The words “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate” carry serious consequences, but I will return to that later. Let us start with the positive. Bill C-26 finally provides funding that will go directly to the provinces and territories for housing without going through a new federal structure or entity such as Build Canada Homes. Once the bill receives royal assent, the transfer will essentially be unconditional, as long as Quebec and the provinces use it for housing initiatives. That is a good thing. There continue to be acute housing needs, and only a transfer that does not come with unnecessary conditions can get projects off the ground quickly instead of sparking a protracted tug-of-war between Quebec City and Ottawa. This means that $1.7 billion will be going directly to provincial governments to support the housing supply. That is exactly what the government should have done for all of its housing initiatives, because the housing situation is not the same in Rimouski, Montreal, Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles, Alma, Dolbeau or Roberval. It is even less so from one province to the next. To claim that a centralized structure in Ottawa can impose a uniform vision that works everywhere is to profoundly misunderstand regional realities and the constitutional division of powers. We saw this with the programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When Ottawa selected projects, Quebec systematically received less than its share. It was only when there was a transfer with an envelope set aside for each province that things went smoothly. I am thinking here of the rapid housing initiative. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a result of $7.3 billion in spending is a pretty expensive percentage. It is $3.5 billion to be exact. We are supposed to believe with these estimates that Ottawa knows better than the provinces when it comes to housing, which, I repeat, is within their own jurisdiction. We would have been quite happy to vote on this bill sooner, if only the government had been transparent and provided us with the details we requested two months ago, instead of dragging its feet as usual. In fact, we have had to keep pressing it for these answers ever since the bill was introduced in March. We know the federal government well. I have been an MP for seven years. When a transfer is announced, it usually comes with strings attached, even when funds are transferred for areas of jurisdiction that are not federal. Details about potential hidden conditions are exactly what we have been trying to obtain for two months, as I said. The bill, with its single clause, makes no mention of this. However, it contains this magical phrase, which is magnificent, “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.” The press release announcing Bill C-26 was just as vague. It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline? Nothing is clear. We are in the dark. Unfortunately, experience has taught us to be cautious. All too often, vague wording hides requirements that are, in fact, very real. Beyond the issue of the terms, there was another equally crucial issue: Quebec's share. When nothing is set in black and white for Quebec, we know how it ends. Quebec is almost always underfunded in federal housing initiatives. That is why we need a clear guarantee that Quebec will receive at least its share, proportional to its population. The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply. He assured us that Quebec would receive its fair share, that the Government of Quebec was aware of the amount and had approved it. We are somewhat reassured by that answer, but it took two months to get it. We are nearing the end of this parliamentary session. We are debating under a closure motion. Meanwhile, the situation remains urgent. Housing needs have not diminished, and projects have not progressed any faster. Worse still, this delay comes at a particularly critical time for Quebec. As my colleagues are aware, the October general election in Quebec is fast approaching. Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North. This is going to be fun. Now, I will get back to my speech. In order to actually get the funding provided for in the bill where it needs to go, Quebec first has to sign an agreement with Ottawa and then it has to sign funding agreements with the municipalities. We are running out of time if we want shovels in the ground this spring, but the Prime Minister's refusal to discuss the matter has caused a two-month delay. I will say it again. I do not know how many times I have said that we are two months behind, but that is what is happening. I am not making that up. Because of this, we could miss an entire construction season. Not only that, but if we look at the January 21 agreement between Ottawa and Quebec under the Canada housing infrastructure fund, we really do have cause for concern. In that case, the agreement was two years late because Ottawa wanted to impose conditions, so that was a job well done, as usual. There is also cause for concern because, as my colleague mentioned, Quebec only got about $1 billion, when the total envelope was $6 billion. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is much smarter than I am, but we still have the same numbers. As he said, that represents 16% of the envelope, which is far less than Quebec's demographic weight in Canada, which is about 22%. The Union des municipalités du Québec has estimated that Quebec should have received $1.3 billion, but it received $1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of $300 million. I am used to speaking in the House. It will soon be seven years. I am used to it. I always say that when something is good, we vote for it, and when it is not good, we vote against it. I am talking about Quebec, of course. In this case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We would have liked to have voted in favour of the bill sooner. We would have liked to have done so following a proper parliamentary and democratic debate, without debate being curtailed. I do not understand the government's position on this matter, and that is unfortunate, but we will be there. We will carry on. We will be there just to be there, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say. We will be there just to be there.