Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act  Madam Speaker, I imagine port users will be very happy to have recourse should they feel they are being overcharged by the ports. However, we wonder why ports would choose to charge absurd fees. If they are doing this, they must have good reason. Usually, businesses do not want their customers to go elsewhere.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act  Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question, although I have trouble seeing how something in the bill could address this issue. We know that, in this country, regional air transportation is the poor cousin of air transportation. Canada is a vast country. Quebec is smaller, but still covers a huge area, so the challenge of regional air transportation would still exist in an independent Quebec.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act  Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I went and read the 2019 report by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I was not sitting on the committee back then, but I could see that a lot of the people who were committee members at that time are still members today.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is very relevant in the circumstances. Bill C‑52 covers service standards for airports. If I understand correctly, it would be up to airports to enforce those service standards, and it would be up to the government to develop them.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but perhaps he could have indulged in a bit of rhetorical flourish at the end, as he usually does when he speaks. I would say it is as if we were going somewhere for a meal and in the end are only served an appetizer. We are left unsatisfied.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act  Madam Speaker, we are in the House today to debate Bill C‑52. It is a highly anticipated bill, as far as I am concerned anyway. There are a few things in this bill that we consider to be positive and we think are worth mentioning. We often complain about the government. In fact, that is the Liberals' chief criticism of us, but that is kind of our role.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56  Madam Speaker, I find it hard to understand. I hear my NDP colleague boasting about the amendments obtained in Government Business No. 30 pertaining to Bill C‑56. These are amendments that are going to be made to the bill and are elements that are important to the NDP. However, the points contained in this motion could very well have been brought as amendments at committee stage.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56  Madam Speaker, my colleague is asking me whether I think there are any good measures in this bill that concern competition. The answer is yes, and I think I already said that. Companies used to be barred from making arrangements with one of their competitors to eliminate another competitor.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56  Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a great question. A budget of $900 million was supposed to be available for housing in Quebec. Unfortunately, it took a very long time before the cities and Quebec could use these funds to build new affordable housing. One sticking point in the negotiations was the federal government's belief that affordable housing costs around $2,000 or $2,500 a month, if I am not mistaken.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56  Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand my colleague's question. I was not listening to the interpretation and it was hard to hear him. I will just mention something that I meant to address in my speech on Government Business No. 30 concerning Bill C-56. We spoke about supply and demand, but the problem is that when it comes to the housing crisis, the government never talks about demand.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56  Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. That is a rather long riding name. Many riding names are quite long. Mine certainly is, and so is hers. Today we are debating Government Business No. 30.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act  Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very optimistic. He said that he sees foreign investment in Canada as a good thing. I agree with him. Everyone wants foreign investment. We are always happy when people want to invest money here. That means our country is an attractive place and there will be job creation and economic spinoffs and so on.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond right away to my Conservative colleague, who is criticizing us for not supporting their amendment to Bill C‑34. The Bloc Québécois did not support the Conservatives' amendment to Bill C‑34 because it was too broad. It was so broad that it included just about every investment not originating with one of the Five Eyes countries, the Commonwealth allies or certain major countries in the world.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act  Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C‑34 at third reading stage. I feel like I am going back in time because even though I am not a member of the committee that studied Bill C‑34, I had the opportunity to speak to it at second reading. That was on February 8, if I am not mistaken.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act  Mr. Speaker, I see that the NDP has once again decided to support a government gag order. I find this odd because, in general, the role of the opposition parties is to challenge the government. Their role is to try and determine whether the government is doing a good job, to ask questions, to try to improve things.