Bill C-216 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

[Daniel Turp, Emeritus Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to your fellow parliamentarians and to the clerk of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I would like to express my pleasure at being back in the House of Commons, virtually. Like you, I have had the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons, as I was the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry during the 36th Parliament, from 1997 to 2000. Today, I am responding to your invitation to appear before you to present my comments on Bill C‑282.

It is a very simple bill. As you've seen, there's a section that would add subsection 2.1 to section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This subsection would essentially ensure that the Minister of Foreign Affairs could no longer engage in negotiations on Canada's supply management system or challenge it through negotiations.

I will make three points. A few hours ago, I submitted a written document to the clerk of the committee. I hope that you will be able to read this document.

My first comment concerns the advisability of improving the act by passing Bill C‑282. In this regard, you will note that I have mentioned in my paper and in my notes the existence of a broad consensus on the need to protect supply management. This consensus is reflected in unanimous House of Commons motions, including the one of November 22, 2005, which was adopted almost 20 years ago in the context of negotiations at the World Trade Organization. In 2018, there were similar motions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

There are also statements from the Minister of Agriculture and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who reminded us that Canada's supply-managed sectors are pillars of rural areas. He added that his government had made a public commitment not to make further concessions in future trade agreements. The Conservatives, through their current leader, have also said that they support supply management. The New Democratic Party also did so in the discussions surrounding Bill C‑216, which preceded Bill C‑282, but was the same in content. The only party that is opposed to protecting the supply management system is the People's Party of Canada, and it has no members in the House of Commons.

So I say, very humbly, that there is a very broad consensus on this issue. Given that broad consensus, I believe that Bill C‑282 should pass and that Parliament should tell the government that it can no longer question the supply management system during negotiations.

This would also send a clear message to trading partners that they can no longer expect the government to make concessions on this system, and it would protect a number of farmers who are calling for the protection of this system and its continuation.

With respect to the legality of the bill, as I mentioned in my written notes, I agree with my colleague from Laval University, Patrick Taillon, who presented his views to this committee when Bill C‑216 was reviewed. I understand that you have a brief from him in which he comments on this issue. He says very clearly that this amendment to the act would be legal and would not pose a constitutional problem. In effect, a law could change the royal prerogative and limit the powers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs when negotiating international trade treaties that could allow concessions where there should not be any.

I will close, Mr. Chair, by suggesting that Parliament should play a much greater role when it comes to international treaties.

It should be given the ability to limit the powers of the minister, as the member who introduced this bill would like. Parliament should be able to approve international trade treaties, because they are important.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If memory serves, the other groups stated their positions during the study of Bill C‑216. One only has to look at the blues to see what their views are.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here in the Bloc Québécois, we work as a team. Protecting and promoting supply management matters to all of us, not just the member for Montcalm, as does the outcome of tomorrow's vote.

Supply management has been a priority for me since I first came to the House in 2015, and, as the sponsor of Bill C‑282, I have to say that, for my friend and colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, protecting supply management has truly become an obsession. That obsession can be satisfied only once Bill C‑282 comes into force. To make that happen, we are going to need the tenacity and skill of our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, because if Bill C‑282 makes it through the crucial vote tomorrow, it will then go to the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which our colleague is a member. I also have to say that it has the unconditional support of every member of the Bloc caucus, who stand not only with me, but with supply-managed producers.

As this debate at second reading comes to a close, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and his party will support my bill. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food held a press conference to announce that the Liberals are supporting Bill C‑282 at every stage. It is not clear where the Conservatives stand. They will sleep on it, but let us not take anything for granted, even though Bill C‑282 is identical to Bill C‑216, which, in case it needs to be repeated, received the support of a majority of members before the last unnecessary election.

I travelled around some of Quebec's major agricultural regions with my colleagues, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We met a farming community that is more mobilized than ever and determined to defend and promote supply management. We also met Quebeckers who care deeply about the advantages of this agricultural model. Indeed, supply management has proven its worth, especially during the pandemic, in terms of self-sufficiency and food security, and consumers are finding that they have access to an adequate supply of high-quality food at competitive prices. They actually want to bring farmers closer to their plates. They want farms with a human dimension, not mega-farms that are fuelled by overproduction and the waste of food and resources.

Farmers in the United States actually want to return to supply management, because their model, based on overproduction, favours only mega-producers and makes human-scale farms disappear. This often means that quality disappears, as well. Consumers can see the beneficial effects of supply management on sustainable agriculture, on land use and on regional economies.

Our producers deserve to no longer feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability, they want to be able to imagine the future, to be able to ensure succession and to preserve their quality standards. The time has come to take action. All countries protect sectors of their economy that they consider to be essential before sitting down at the free trade table. In the United States, that is the case for cotton and sugar.

After several motions were unanimously adopted by the House of Commons, successive Conservative and Liberal governments did not keep their promises and, on three occasions, made long-term and irreparable breaches. Only one law will prevent this from happening again. My mother used to say that it is never too late to do the right thing. If we truly respect those who work to feed us, we must walk the talk and vote for Bill C‑282.

Therefore, I invite all Conservative parliamentarians who have yet to be convinced to vote for Bill C-282 so not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent Shefford, a riding that is located in the region known as Quebec's pantry. We are proud of our farmers. Agri-tourism is at the heart of my riding's economy. I love going around to all the public markets and talking to local farmers.

Naturally, the subject of Bill C-282, supply management, is vital to many of them. During the last election campaign, I promised the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Haute‑Yamaska that I would fight tooth and nail for supply management and introduce a bill. I also made the same promise during a press conference with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the riding next to mine.

It is therefore with great humility and tremendous respect for the the work of the first dynamic trio who recently went to bat for the vital issue of supply management that I rise to speak on this subject. I am talking about my dear colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Montcalm and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I will begin my speech by talking about the importance of supply management. Then, I will remind the House of the Bloc's historic role on this issue and close with the words of some farmers from my riding.

First, the bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include the protection of the supply management system as part of the minister's responsibilities. It adds supply management to the list of directives the minister must take into account when conducting business outside Canada, including in international trade.

Once this bill comes into force in its entirety, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up for supply-managed farmers in front of our trade partners. The minister will henceforth have the mandate to negotiate agreements without creating breaches in the system, as it did during the signing of the three most important international trade agreements of the past decade.

The bill has become necessary, not least because of the serious breaches that previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, opened up and negotiated in the last international trade agreements. These breaches in the supply management mechanism prevent the system from working effectively by attacking the integrity of its basic principles, namely pricing control, production control and border control.

In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. This is a system that was put in place in the 1970s. It ensures that we produce just enough to meet domestic demand while avoiding overproduction and waste. It also ensures price stability.

Prices are controlled by setting a price floor and a price ceiling so that each link in the chain gets its fair share. That includes the consumer, who can be sure of getting a very high-quality, ethically farmed local product. Another aspect is border control, which includes very high tariffs and import quotas, preventing foreign products or by-products from invading our market. Because the market is largely closed to imports and there are price controls in place, producers do not end up in a never-ending race to lower production costs.

The current government is taking a number of worrisome actions that compromise the ability of Canada—and especially Quebec, which has a different agricultural reality—to choose the type of agriculture it wants to develop. In fact, the recent free trade agreements, particularly the one with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, will have catastrophic consequences for certain products and processors under supply management.

Border control is the pillar most weakened by the international agreements. However, given that supply management has never come under fire from the World Trade Organization, or WTO, Canada has every right to protect its markets so long as it complies with the degree of openness established by the WTO.

If international agreements and the WTO give Canada the right to protect its markets, why have there been concessions? It is because Canada cannot cope with pressure from trading partners during negotiations. It is as simple as that. It succumbs to lobby groups and arguments made by other countries that want access to an as-yet untapped market at all costs.

Despite the new aid programs, which were a long time coming, it is abundantly clear that no compensation can possibly make up for the permanent damage caused by concessions in agreements with Europe, the Pacific Rim nations, the United States and Mexico. Accordingly, the Conservatives' argument about how compensation was promised under the Harper Conservatives during the opening rounds of the first two agreements is false.

Second, I want to stress the following point: The Bloc Québécois has always defended supply management in Ottawa. This is the second time that this bill has been tabled and, if not for the unnecessary election that the Prime Minister called in August 2021, Bill C‑216 might have made it to the Senate by now.

By contrast, the House had to adopt four motions unanimously to ask the federal government to fully protect supply management. However, the Liberal and Conservative governments presumably did not feel bound by this commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements. In fact, because of the concessions that were made, these agreements were catastrophic for agricultural producers and processors under supply management, who are now wondering about their future.

Supply management is a model that is envied around the world, especially in jurisdictions that have abolished it. In Quebec, agriculture is practised on smaller farms where there is a much greater concern for quality and respect for the environment. While Quebec's quality-centred agriculture sector is flourishing, with an ever-increasing variety of local products and organic farming, Ottawa is taking the opposite approach by encouraging more industrial agriculture.

Until the Quebec government is present at international negotiations and until it gets to act as the sole architect of agricultural policies, there is a serious risk that Ottawa will align the federal government with the needs of western Canada. The Bloc Québécois simply wants the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to keep the promise they have made more than once to stop making concessions at the expense of supply-managed producers. That is all.

It was Stephen Harper's Conservatives who got the ball rolling in 2008. Supply management first started crumbling with the Canada-Europe free trade agreement negotiations, because the Canadian government started putting supply management on the table, something it had never dared to do in the past. Since then, there has been one breach after another.

Supply management has always been a key issue to the Bloc Québécois. During the entire time that the Bloc Québécois had a strong presence in the House, which I remember well, as I was an assistant then, the government signed free trade agreements with 16 countries and fully protected the supply management system.

During the federal election that followed the creation of the WTO, in other words the June 1997 election, defending the supply management system was already one of our election priorities. That was quite a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to move a motion in the House calling for the pillars of the supply management system to be fully maintained. The House will recall that the motion was adopted unanimously by all parties. What is more, for practically every major negotiation, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to protect supply management. We are the defenders of supply management, the voice of supply-managed farmers.

Third, I want to share the words of farmers back home. Nancy Fournier, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby who is a member of the board of directors of the Haute-Yamaska branch of the UPA and part of the next generation of Quebec farmers, told us that she is proud of our efforts and our support for agriculture.

Denis Beaudry, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby, said the following: “The bill is very relevant because we are fed up with supply management being used as a bargaining chip in treaty negotiations. From a more local perspective, the riding of Shefford is home to many supply-managed businesses, so when supply management is mishandled, the agricultural community suffers. I look forward to seeing whether the other parties will support the bill. The government said that it would no longer compromise on supply management. We will see.”

Valéry Martin, a communications advisor at UPA de l'Estrie, said the following: “Supply management provides stability and helps maintain the country's food self-sufficiency. Supply-managed farms are everywhere, keeping our communities strong. There are not many sectors that can provide this kind of predictability, food security and superior quality products without direct subsidies.”

I want to say one last thing. Without supply management, there would not be many people left in Abitibi, Saguenay, Lac‑Saint‑Jean or the Gaspé, because it helps ensure that there are family farms all across our beautiful Quebec nation. If there is one economic sector that is key to how our land is used in Quebec, it is the agricultural industry. The statistics speak for themselves. With $9.1 billion in sales generated by just over 42,000 farmers on 29,000 farms, Quebec agriculture is essential, important, vital.

Agriculture is going through a very difficult period, however. We are at a crossroads, where we will have to choose between following the trend of more open markets and protecting domestic markets in order to promote human-scale agriculture. We will need strong agricultural policies that will help local farmers make a living providing top-quality agricultural products to consumers.

Consumers are also placing increasing demands on farmers. Farmers are being asked to produce better-quality food that is more diverse at a lower price. They are also being asked to protect the environment and use Quebec's land to benefit all of society. As incredible as it may seem, despite the meagre support they receive, farmers are doing a brilliant job of rising to this challenge, despite the pandemic, the labour shortage, the disastrous consequences of the free trade agreements, the war in Ukraine and the inflation crisis.

We must respond to the requests of this sector that feeds us, that sustains us. Tomorrow, let us put partisanship aside and vote in favour of Bill C-282. We must take action.

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

Madam Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the member for Montcalm for bringing forward this bill for us to consider. I appreciate having this bill because it allows me to talk about my riding and the long, storied and very rich agriculture history of the Cowichan Valley. We have multi-generational farms there.

For Cowichan tribes, in the Hul'q'umi'num language, Cowichan means the warm land. We are blessed with a beautiful little microclimate in the Cowichan Valley. We get copious amounts of rain in the winter, but we are absolutely blasted by the sun in the summer. It allows for a very unique growing climate where there is a very strong connection between local farmers and the population that they grow food for.

As to supply management, I am very lucky to have a number of dairy farms in the Cowichan Valley and a number of egg farms. In my seven years as a member of Parliament representing that amazing riding, I would be remiss if I did not point out how welcoming supply-managed farmers there have always been to me. They have always extended the courtesy of an invitation so that I can go and tour their farms to see how modern they are, how efficient they are and how the supply management system is able to give them a good income and also allow them to plan for the future.

That is a real strength of the system. It is a system that rests on three key pillars. It was brought in because a lot of farmers back in the 1970s and before were suffering through very wild price fluctuations, especially on commodities. It was really hard to try to plan for the future. Many farms experience that to this day. If one does not know what one's income is going to be in the year or years ahead, it makes it that much harder to do financial planning around the farm, and that is critical.

If one wants to stay competitive and have an edge, investment in technology and machinery is absolutely critical. Supply management has always allowed farmers to do that. When one goes to some of the dairy farms around the Cowichan Valley, one can see that they are actually serviced by remarkable robotics. It is quite incredible to see the level of technology on display.

Those three pillars are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. Like a three-legged stool, if one were to weaken one of those pillars, the whole system would be at risk. It needs all three to work in tandem, in harmony, and to also be strong.

Under our system, we have not had so much trouble with production control, which is issued through quotas, or on the pricing part. The part that has always been targeted by governments of a variety of stripes is import control. The way we do this is through tariff rate quotas. We do allow imports of certain dairy products such as eggs and poultry. They can come in at a certain rate, but once they go over the maximum amount that is allowed, a huge tariff is placed on them. That is to protect our homegrown system.

I am sure if one were to ask any Canadian, their preference would be to always have locally sourced food. I think it is a point of pride that we have developed a system where our farmers can not only thrive but also produce that good local food for their local communities.

That brings me to why Bill C-282 is before us. I can understand why this bill was brought forward. I was here in the 42nd Parliament. I remember hearing the news of how the TPP had been negotiated, the CETA and also, later on, CUSMA. Each one of those agreements started carving out more of our supply-managed market and allowing more foreign imports to come into Canada. That was despite repeated pleas from the industry to the Liberals to leave their sector alone. Now we have a bill that is going to specifically address that and curtail the ability of a foreign affairs minister to negatively impact it.

I have been very curious to see where the Conservatives will land on this bill because, in the previous Parliament, when Bill C-216 was brought before this House, I believe the Conservative caucus was split. About a third of them supported it and two-thirds were against.

I can understand the awkwardness for the Conservative Party because at one time it almost had mad Max as a leader, the famous man from Beauce. He was almost the leader of the Conservative Party. It went down to, I think, the 13th ballot. Maxime has always been very vocal in his opposition to supply management, which is a very curious thing given the region he comes from, and it may explain why he is no longer here as a member of Parliament. It will be interesting to see, when this bill comes to second reading vote, what the blue team will be able to do on this.

I will read out a few facts and figures. Last year, Canada had over 9,000 dairy farms. It is an industry that contributes 221,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP. We have over 5,200 poultry and egg farms. One statistic that has always stood out for me is that Canada, with a population of around 36 million people, has over 1,000 egg farms. In the United States, which has 10 times the population, there are just over 100. This shows the differences in the systems.

We have a system that has allowed 1,000 egg farms to thrive on a population that is a tenth the size of our southern neighbour. We know the state of Wisconsin produces more milk than our entire country. Farmers there, unfortunately, have suffered negatively from wild price fluctuations. I know, from talking to farmers, that many of our southern neighbours do look north in envy of the system we have in place here.

Bill C-216 was successfully referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and reported back to the House. Unfortunately, in 2021, we had to deal with an unnecessary election, which had the effect of killing the bill outright. I hope we have enough runway for this bill to make a longer push this time. I am certainly going to be giving my support for it to be heading to committee, just as I proudly did last time.

If we look at the mechanics of this bill, we need to take a look at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. Section 10 basically spells out all of the functions, duties and powers the minister of foreign affairs has. For example, the ability to conduct diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of our country and foster the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce. These are a few examples of what the powers and duties are, as they currently exist in the act.

What Bill C-282 seeks to do is to basically prevent the foreign affairs minister from making any kind of a commitment by international treaty or agreement that would have any effect of increasing the tariff rate quota, so basically allowing more foreign imports to come in, and of course reducing the tariff rate on that particular quota that is coming in.

Again, it is born out of the experience of dealing with Liberals over the last seven years, where they repeatedly stood up in the House and said that they were the strong defenders of supply management, but every single trade deal that came through the House and was enacted was always slicing a bit more of the pie away. I understand why this bill is before us.

I am always happy to have the opportunity to talk about farmers, not only those across this great country but also those in my riding, and I am always happy to stand here as a strong defender of supply management, as all New Democrats always have been. I look forward to this bill getting another turn at committee. I congratulate the member for Montcalm for bringing it forward.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise in the House to contribute to the second reading debate on Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

It is a particular honour any time I get to speak to a bill where I can highlight the work that the hard-working farmers and farm families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada are doing not only to feed Canadians, but quite literally to feed the world.

Bill C-282 may sound familiar to some members and to some Canadians because it is an identical copy of Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament, which was introduced by another Bloc Québécois member of Parliament, the dean of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Members will recall that the bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the unnecessary summer election.

I recognize that both members who introduced this bill have a strong commitment to the supply management industry, which this party and many Canadians across the country certainly support.

I know there are some in this country who may not have the same vigour in supporting supply management, but I think it is important in a bill such as this one that we have a nuanced and thoughtful discussion on its strengths and weaknesses, how it may contribute to the situation, and how it may affect, negatively or positively, future trade deals in decades to come.

I want to talk briefly about food security. If we have learned anything during the past two and a half years of the pandemic, it is the importance of food security. When we have seen broken supply chains and shortages of goods on shelves across the country, it reinforces the necessity of a strong domestic production system.

We need to be able to feed the citizens in our country, but also to export the products that are created here in Canada across the world. I might add that when we have a country that is agriculturally as rich as Canada is, it is a crying shame that there are still Canadians who are food insecure. No Canadian, no person living in this great country of Canada, should be food insecure when we have the great natural benefits of our food production system here in Canada.

I have the honour of representing perhaps the greatest agricultural riding in this country. Perth—Wellington is home to the most dairy farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most chicken farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most pork producers of any area in Ontario, and it is in the top five for beef production as well.

Perth—Wellington has some of the most fertile farmland anywhere in the world. It is some of the most productive farmland that we will find anywhere in the country. The cost of that farmland reflects that, as we are now seeing land sales of over $35,000 per acre in Perth—Wellington and across southern Ontario.

I say that to emphasize the importance of the supply managed commodities, but also the non-supply managed commodities as well. Canadians and Canadian agriculture have certainly benefited from supply management, but there are also benefits from the world market that comes with international trade.

I would note that Perth—Wellington is home to more than 62,000 dairy cows, which is more than the number of people who voted in Perth—Wellington in the last election.

According to Statistics Canada, Perth—Wellington has over 350 chicken and egg farmers and produces over 28 million eggs. That is enough to make 9.3 million omelettes if one uses three eggs to make an omelette. We produce, in the combined counties of Huron and Perth, 542,270,559 litres of milk each year. That is enough milk for each Canadian to have a glass of milk for 56 consecutive mornings.

Those same dairy farmers and farm families provide over $1.2 billion to our national gross domestic product, and that is only in the counties of Perth and Huron. If we combine the counties of Wellington, Dufferin, Peel and Simcoe, which produce 385 million litres of milk, that is another $800 million added to Canada's GDP.

Let us remember as well the great influence of new technology on our agriculture sector. Agriculture is at the leading and cutting edge of technology. We have robotic milkers that have made advances in the dairy industry. We see folks in the beef industry making concrete efforts to increase sustainability and decrease greenhouse gas emissions within the industry. They are doing it on their own. They are doing it because it is the right thing to do. It is beneficial to farmers and the industry, who know the benefit and know they are the closest to the environment, the closest to the land on which they are stewards.

I have had the great honour and privilege to visit so many local farms in my community. I know the commitment these farmers and farm families have not only to feeding our communities, but also to playing their part in the great global supply chain and contributing to increased sustainability. It is important that these farmers have a fair and predictable marketplace where they can compete domestically and, for those who export, internationally.

All is not well in the agriculture industry. Certainly, farmers and farm families are facing the brunt of the inflation crisis and the challenges within the supply chain failures that have been caused by the Liberal government. Fuel, heat, feed, fertilizer, equipment, all of these costs are increasing at a rate that is not sustainable. One proposal from this official opposition is doing one small part to make that better. Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, would exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax for on-farm use. Canadians know that when farmers are drying their grains they need those things and for the government to apply the carbon tax just does not make sense. I am pleased that bill has finally made it out of committee and will be returning to this House for report stage and third reading debate. I am very pleased that my friend and colleague from Huron—Bruce was the one who was able to shepherd the bill through.

What we are seeing as well are the fertilizer tariffs. We still have not seen meaningful action from the government regarding the costs that were imposed on Canadian farmers for fertilizer purchased before March 2. In fact, just today I received another letter from the Minister of Agriculture, as I had begged her to address this, and once again she has failed to provide an encouraging response on this matter.

Farmers and farm families need support and reassurance from the federal government, not ongoing challenges, including, I might add, the unfair, unscientific approach to front-of-pack labelling labelling. The government was finally forced to back down from having it on ground beef and other single ingredient products.

The Liberal government unfortunately neglects too many farmers and farm families in the agriculture industry. In fact, if anyone had listened to the fall economic statement earlier this month, they would have found that a focus on agriculture was sorely lacking.

I recognize that this bill, Bill C-282, is largely a reaction to concessions that the Liberal government made in the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, the CUSMA, in which further concessions were made for dairy, poultry and eggs. I would note that it was under our Conservative government, under the strong leadership of the former minister, the member for Abbotsford, that Canada committed to trade deals with dozens of international countries, where we expanded our foreign markets, all while ensuring the supply management industry was properly protected. That is the approach the Conservative government has taken in the past and one that would be taken in the future.

Certainly, this bill has some challenges in how it would be implemented and how it would be dealt with at the negotiation table, but that is something that could be considered at the committee stage. It is important that the bill be given a thorough examination at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Recognizing that my time is dwindling, I shall move on to the final point, which is the importance of our agriculture and agri-food industry, which not only feeds our country, but helps to feed the world.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved that Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of supply-managed producers. I will present the main reasons why we, as lawmakers, should guarantee our producers a sustainable future by passing Bill C‑282.

I just want to take a moment to thank farmers in the riding of Montcalm who operate 87 supply-managed farms. Over 70% of the riding is agricultural. Its main industry is agriculture and agri-food.

Given that a number of Bloc Québécois motions to protect the integrity of supply management have been adopted unanimously, some members think it would be inconsistent not to pass this bill in principle and refer it to a committee for study. I thank them for that.

It is also a privilege for me to sponsor this bill, which I should note is identical to Bill C‑216. If memory serves, that bill won the support of a significant majority of 250 MPs in the previous Parliament thanks to my colleagues' amazing work.

I want to mention the work done by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, a brilliant and staunch defender of the interests of the agricultural sector. I also salute the contribution of my young and eloquent colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. Not to mention the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who sponsored Bill C‑216 in the last Parliament, a bill that would already be in effect if not for the useless election in August 2021. He is the dean of the House, the one who has seen the flood of good intentions in the ocean of promises to protect supply management.

These promises resulted in irreversible breaches in three major free trade agreements that unfortunately did permanent damage because the supply management system wrongly became a bargaining chip, as Gérard Bérubé wrote in Le Devoir on August 30, 2018:

Canada's supply management system has found itself in the crosshairs many times in the context of free trade and, unfortunately, has become a bargaining chip for Ottawa in the the past three major negotiations. From breach to fault, the crack continues to grow dangerously bigger.

I believe in parliamentary democracy and refuse to become a cynic, although I hold no naive beliefs about the ability of the legislative power to not let itself be subordinate to the executive, especially for those on the government benches.

As MPs, we are representatives of the people and we are legislators. We are the ones who must make the voice of the people heard and defend their interests against an executive power that all too often governs like a supreme ruler and that sometimes breaks its promises and goes against the unanimous will of the House, as expressed in the motions it adopts.

Some might think that Bill C‑282 is not necessary. They will swear, hand on heart, that they will protect supply management from now on. However, history tends to repeat itself, so I would humbly point out, by way of example, that, in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion on February 7, 2018, which said, and I quote: “That the House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.” This motion was unanimously adopted.

A month later, on March 8, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In the context of the renegotiation of NAFTA, the Bloc also moved a motion on September 26, 2017, for the government to protect supply-managed markets. I will read it:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

One month later, on November 30, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing CUSMA, an agreement meant to replace NAFTA. Unfortunately, despite the promise made to Parliament, several concessions were made, putting the financial stability of Quebec's agricultural businesses in jeopardy. Four times the House unanimously expressed its desire to fully protect the supply management system. However, both Liberal and Conservative governments clearly did not feel bound by that commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements.

These agreements have been disastrous when it comes to the concessions that were made at the expense of supply-managed agricultural producers and processors. Without the guarantee that Bill C‑282 offers to exclude supply management from free trade agreements, many are now questioning their future.

Bill C‑282 is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to expand the minister's list of responsibilities to include protecting the supply management system. Section 10 of the act would be amended to add supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canada's external affairs, including international trade. Once this bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to defend supply-managed farmers to our trading partners. It will now be part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without creating loopholes in the system, as has been the case with the last three agreements. Bill C‑282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively. They undermine the integrity of the principles that make up the system: price, production and border controls.

Supply management is an essential strategic tool in preserving our food autonomy, regional development and land use. It is also a pan-Canadian risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations. This system is based on three main principles, on three pillars.

The first pillar is supply management via a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quota to each province. The provinces' marketing boards, also known as producer associations, sell quota to their own farmers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand.

The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.

The third pillar is border control.

Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. For almost a decade now, the price of milk has been plummeting, and small farms are no longer able to cover production costs.

This price level is generally attributed to overproduction. Every year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, it was over 100 million gallons. In the state of Wisconsin, for example, nearly 500 farms per week were shutting down in 2018.

Producers can simply no longer afford to produce for so little income. One of the problems is that the dairy sector is organized around overproduction, particularly with the aim of exporting surplus production at low prices. As a former U.S. secretary of agriculture himself admitted, when you overproduce, only the biggest can survive.

Of course, there is another possible argument. Some people might think that, since producers and processors have finally been compensated, although four years later in some cases, and they are satisfied, small breaches can continue from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards.

Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the agreements with Europe, the Pacific countries, the U.S. and Mexico. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain.

In closing, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements?

The answer to that question should be yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. We have the right to do so, and many countries avail themselves of those provisions. We are not the only ones that protect certain products. Everyone does it, even the countries that are criticizing us for doing so.

It is important to remember that Canada has signed 16 free trade agreements that do not affect supply management in any way. It is therefore possible to discuss and negotiate without touching supply management.

We cannot allow the United States or other countries to force us to abandon our agricultural policies and practices. What are we really trying to protect our production from? We want to protect it from unfair competition.

Our main partner, the United States, is breaking many international trade rules while constantly asking us to give them more access. The U.S. is providing its agricultural industry with billions of dollars in illegal subsidies a year, which cuts production costs for farmers and enables them to resell their products locally or elsewhere at a lower cost. That is strictly prohibited by the WTO.

There is no question that Quebec and Canada are exporting nations. This is not about increasing protectionism. What we want is to maintain a system that has proven its worth for almost 50 years.

Since 2015, I have had the opportunity to introduce two bills, which were rejected. This is my third attempt. If the House were to adopt Bill C‑282, I would share my pride with all parliamentarians from all parties, and with all those who care about protecting an agricultural model that provides our producers with the predictability required to look to the future with dignity, to grow their businesses in the hope of proudly passing on their passion to the next generation with human-scale farms, while always ensuring that they produce high-quality products ethically. This model ensures that everyone wins, from producers to processors to consumers.

By adopting Bill C‑282, we will ensure that never again will supply management be sacrificed on the altar of free trade.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Repentigny.

If I had a title for my speech, it would be “autopsy of a failure”. Before we talk about the throne speech, let us go back in time, to last spring. I would remind my colleagues that we were in a pandemic last spring. There was only one MP on the other side. I say this often, because I cannot believe it. There was just the member for Kingston and the Islands. All the other Liberal Party members were in their basements or some such place. They were afraid of the pandemic. They were shaking under their desks. Once in a while, the Prime Minister would come and visit. I remember that we would give a start of surprise when we saw him coming. We were shocked to see that there were other Liberals in that party. He would arrive from time to time and answer questions.

Then, things improved. Quebec began opening up. We thought the Liberals would eventually see common sense. We talked about it with their leader and their whip. They said that they could not come to the House, that the situation was still terrible and that there was still a pandemic. They continued to hide under their desks in the basement. They said that they could not do it, that they could not handle the light of day and that they needed to adapt.

It made no sense. That was the Liberal approach. They were afraid of the pandemic.

People say a lot of things, but the Prime Minister can be very persuasive. He convinced those folks over there that it was time to call an election. Even though we were in a fourth wave of the pandemic, he convinced them that the time was right. Even though it was only two years after the previous election, it was the right time to meet the public. An election had to be called, the situation was critical, there was an emergency on the home front.

At the end of the day, one by one, Liberal Party members took the bait. They thought they were going to walk around, meet with people and shake their hands. Soon they were making human pyramids. They were happy; they were finally out.

They told people that they were calling an election and that everybody would have to line up to vote. We were in the fourth wave of the pandemic, but no big deal. They said they could not make Parliament work because of their minority situation, that it was not going well and that the opposition was behaving outrageously. They all said that.

I have been the House leader of the Bloc Québécois since 2019, and I remember that everything was going well. The opposition was making its contribution. There were discussions happening, and that was great. Bills were being improved because we were all working together. I would say that the main problem during that time was more the Liberal government's lack of organization in developing its parliamentary strategy and legislative agenda than the opposition from the opposition parties.

There were bills on the table, and the work was getting done. Bill C‑10 got all the way to the Senate. In Quebec, we had been waiting for years for the web giants to contribute to the culture sector. The bill died in the Senate because of the election. Bill C‑216 was meant to ensure that supply management would be protected in future trade agreements. It was on track. Everything was going well. Bill C‑6 on conversion therapy was almost wrapped up. The Liberals are coming back to that now with another bill.

The bill that made pensioners first in line to get paid when a company goes bankrupt was also coming along nicely. The one that made sure that someone with a serious illness was entitled to 50 weeks of EI benefits was moving forward. That is something to be expected, it makes sense, but they decided to throw it all away and call an election, because time was of the essence.

The Prime Minister looked people straight in the eye and told them that it was urgent, that the government needed their opinion because otherwise horrible things lay ahead. The public voted, and almost all members are back, except for a few changes.

The public said to stop fooling around, stop with the elections and get back to work. They said to get back to work because we are in a pandemic. That is what the public said. The public told the government to get its act together and return to Parliament.

Now the Liberals are returning to Parliament. They wanted a majority government, but that turned out to be a flop. Now they are saying that we need to take the bull by the horns, that it is extremely important, that it is urgent.

We sat around for two months. We waited for Parliament to be recalled for two months. Our clothes were out of style by the time we came back here.

They came back, claiming that the throne speech would be as amazing as a kangaroo on a trampoline and that we would have to wait and see. People were saying that the speech would be amazing, that it would be the highlight of the decade.

When we heard the speech, however, there was nothing there. The government should be ashamed of having given birth to a mouse. It is not even a mouse; it is a flea and you would need a microscope just to see what is there. No matter how many times you read it, there is nothing there.

In the end, we did find one thing. We learned that the government does not like its jurisdictions and prefers to interfere in provincial ones. The government asked itself how it could interfere in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. Someone a little smarter said that the provinces and Quebec would be stunned if the government were to interfere in health care.

The government talks about health but fails to mention that provincial health care systems are underfunded because the federal government has been starving them for more than 20 years. The federal government is saying that it is going to stop giving the provinces the money they deserve and is going starve them little by little. At some point, however, all hell is going to break loose. That is when the federal government will step in and say that the provinces do not know how to manage health care and that there are all kinds of problems in the sector.

However, the federal government has been starving the provinces' and Quebec's health care systems for 20 years. It is quite simple. The government must be told to increase payments as it should be doing and to increase transfers to 35% of the cost of health care for everyone in Canada and Quebec. Everyone agrees on this amount except for the federal government, which does not understand. The federal government is telling itself that it will say that the provinces are not doing a good job, so that it can go ahead and interfere in their jurisdictions.

The federal government is steadfast, and it does not like its jurisdictions. The rail crisis fell under federal jurisdiction, but it let the provinces deal with it. It says it will let the City of Montreal and Quebec deal with the firearms issue. When an issue falls under its jurisdiction, it does not want to deal with it, but it will meddle in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If the Prime Minister wanted to run a provincial government, all he had to do was stand for election in British Columbia. However, he is the Prime Minister of Canada.

The federal government thought it came up with a good idea by announcing that it needs a minister responsible for mental health, an area that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. However, the federal government said that it would be all right and that it would be fun. It went ahead with it.

This morning, despite being comfortably seated, I fell right off my chair when the leader of the official opposition said a minister responsible for mental health was a good idea. The Conservatives have been saying for years that they do not want to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Then, this morning, the leader of the official opposition said he was disappointed and ready to fight. The thing is, one cannot respect the provinces' jurisdiction by leaving them alone and support the idea of a minister responsible for mental health at the same time. That does not work, but that is what the Conservatives did, and they thought it was pretty great. Then they said it was because the government was no good. I think the root of the problem is not that the government is not good; it is that it did not do its basic job.

Quebeckers send half their taxes to Ottawa because they want to be taken care of during a pandemic that makes the problem even worse. What Quebec and Quebeckers want is to see the money they send to Ottawa flowing back to where it is needed: health care. The federal government does not have the authority to handle health care. It has never done so. It has never paid a doctor or a nurse, and it has almost never run a hospital, so it must send that money to the people with expertise in this area: my government, the Government of Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants.

We are also thinking about seniors, who suffered in isolation, who were the most affected by the pandemic in terms of health, who are on a fixed income and who are now being financially strangled by inflation. The only thing the federal government did was divide them into two classes. It said that it would help seniors 75 and up, but seniors 65 to 75 would have to wait.

In the House, three ministers said that if seniors 65 to 75 did not have the means to live comfortably, they would have to go back to work. Seriously? The federal Liberal government wants to send people 65 to 75 back to work? This government is already worn out only two months in. Good thing it spent two months resting, or it would be dead.

With a throne speech like that, I think the opposition will have its work cut out for it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Drummond for his question.

My answer will be mixed. There have indeed been actions taken to support farmers, but often they are inadequate one-offs, involving meagre amounts that, I just said earlier, are used to make “mini-announcements” rather than bring in anything permanent.

There are requests, and I will give three examples. If the House feels strongly about the question asked by my colleague from Drummond and wants to do something for the farming community, Bill C‑216 protects supply management once and for all. All parties voted overwhelmingly in favour of this bill, which was referred to committee and must now come back to the House. I wish it had come back before we leave.

Bill C‑208 is currently before the Senate. I find it very fishy that it is taking so long. I hope the Senate passes it before Parliament rises.

There are several measures like that.

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C‑206 today, as I did at second reading. Today, we have come full circle. I propose that we look at the bill by asking five basic questions, which we should ask more often in these cases: who, when, how, what and where. It is very simple.

I will start with who, in other words, those we are proposing this bill for. Unlike other political parties, we in the Bloc Québécois do not tend to give gifts to people who do not need it.

Farmers kept the agriculture sector going in a crisis, which is not easy. We know that farm owners had a very tough time on the labour front. This hurt food security, supply and, in some cases, animal health. Management of issues surrounding the arrival of foreign workers has been problematic, and, a few days ago, assistance from the government in support of quarantine was cut in half.

However, even before the crisis began, our farmers were already struggling. Climate change is causing even greater uncertainty around crops and harvests. Furthermore, it is getting harder and harder to find young farmers to take over, particularly because the price of land keeps going up year after year.

People who grew up on the land and worked with their parents will find it increasingly difficult to take over the farming operation. There are rare occasions when parents can afford to be generous and gift the farm to their children, instead of using the value of the farm business they have built up their entire lives to fund their retirement. In other cases, given the rising cost of land and quotas, it is hard to find young farmers to take over.

Why are we doing this, that is, why are we debating Bill C-206? We must remember that the bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, including section three, which lists the products that are not taxed, in particular those for farming purposes. Natural gas and propane were missing from the list of exempt products. Why does Bill C-206 seek to add them to section three?

A carbon tax discourages people from taking a certain action and encourages them to choose a behaviour over another. However, in order for that to happen, people must have options, and that is exactly the problem.

There was an example of this in my riding during the rail crisis. CN just stopped delivering propane for two weeks when farmers had to dry their crops, which was a critical time for them. The moisture level in crops was very high that year, and had farmers not been able to dry them, they would have rotted, which would have resulted in the loss of an entire year's income.

In this particular case, propane was the only option, since any alternatives are still in the pilot-project stage and are not a viable option for large-scale farming businesses. When I asked farmers, who were worried about not getting the propane they needed, they told me that there was no alternative to propane, but that they would like to have one.

The existing power grid would not even have the capacity to generate enough heat for drying grain. It is as though people expected to one day have electric hot air balloons—they are very popular back home—but this is not going to happen overnight. Technologies like biomass are still too new, and there is not enough incentive for us to expect quick changes in carbon pricing.

That brings me to my third point: When will it happen? This is the part I find unfortunate, because we are three days out from the end of the parliamentary session and the summer recess. This Parliament could end up being replaced with a new one, based on the election rumours we are hearing.

It is really unfortunate that we are debating a bill this important and necessary at the eleventh hour, knowing that it could end up dying on the Order Paper, just like Bill C‑216, the bill on supply management introduced by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, or the bill on farm succession planning, which the Senate just started studying.

On this third point, I want to say how disappointed we are with the government's management of the legislative calendar, because we are currently debating a great bill that, unfortunately, may never see the light of day.

How is Bill C‑206 being dealt with?

This part is a bit nicer. As I was preparing for my speech on my drive in to work this morning from my riding of Saint-Jean, I listened again to what happened and what my other colleagues said, particularly those who are members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I was very happy to hear how well people are working together on this committee. There is no excessive partisanship since everyone is serving the same cause, that of farmers and those who feed us. It is in that spirit of co-operation that a key amendment was proposed to improve Bill C‑206. This amendment is really worthwhile, because it addresses the concern that some might have about the fact that there is a gap in the bill, the ultimate purpose of which is to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendment sets an end date for the exemption for natural gas and propane. In other words, natural gas and propane will be exempt from taxation for 10 years in the hope that, a decade from now, there will be new technology that will enable us to stop using natural gas and propane. That is our hope, anyway, but the government needs to get cracking because farmers do not want to be passive witnesses to these changes. They want to be part of it, but they need help. Contrary to what some people think, farmers do not wake up in the morning thinking about how great it is that they can go out and pollute. They just want help finding alternatives that are commercially viable, because they operate in a global market and cannot pass costs on to their customers. They would no longer be able to compete internationally, so we have to give our farmers that support.

The final point is, where is that supposed to happen? People might think that it is obvious it should be done in the House of Commons and Parliament, because that is where bills are passed and amendments made. That seems obvious, but nowadays, very few things that should be obvious are.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to the parliamentary spirit that has characterized Parliament during the pandemic. I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the interpreters, the support staff and the tech support who made it possible for us to function relatively normally, despite COVID‑19.

I also want to express my hope that, despite everything, we will get back to normal quickly, so that we can have accountability, so that there is someone in the House who answers questions, and so that reporters can do their job and ask parliamentarians questions as they leave the House. I also hope that we can go back to normal sooner rather than later so we can get parliamentarians working co-operatively, apart from the occasional stormy question period.

When we parliamentarians are working together face to face, we are able to move files along more efficiently, understand one another better, and remember for whom, why, how, where and when we create bills. It is fundamental to remember that, and that is what we are reminded of when we sit in the House in person.

With that in mind, I want to acknowledge the work of the House, but I also want to take a moment to remember the farmers. I wish Bill C‑206 could have gone forward. I cannot help but think of all the people I have known since I was a little girl growing up in the country. As members can imagine, it has been quite a while since I was “little”.

My thoughts are with our farmers, in the hope that, if not this time, Bill C‑206 can come back sooner rather than later and eventually be passed by the House and the Senate.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the facts show that Quebeckers cannot count on the federal government to take action against tax havens. There is nothing in budget 2021 to do away with them.

Unfortunately, there are provisions in Bill C‑30 that make it even easier to use tax havens. The federal government is therefore still complicit in tax avoidance schemes, which makes Canada part of the problem and not part of the solution in the fight against tax havens.

In budget 2021, which serves as a springboard for the post-COVID‑19 economic recovery, the federal government offers little or nothing to help small farms get better access to credit. This inability to access credit was one of the most serious problems that farmers encountered during the health crisis. That is unacceptable.

Agriculture is obviously not a priority for the Liberal government, but it is a priority for Quebec and an integral part of our culture. The Liberal government has never been interested in supporting a bill to better protect supply management, which is essential to the survival of the agricultural model. Protecting supply management has always enjoyed broad support within Quebec's agricultural sector, but it is also acknowledged by producers in the other provinces as well as in the United States, which says something.

Why did the Liberal government recently do everything it could to prevent Bill C‑216 being passed in committee? Well, it did pass, and we hope the accelerating pace of the coming days will bring this bill along for the ride. Quebec's agricultural sector is counting on us.

In the Bloc Québécois's view, parliamentary proceedings and debates too often take too long, things do not move fast enough, and people talk even though they have nothing to say. For years, and again this week, members have spoken at length in the House of Commons about various aspects of the housing problem.

Still, there remains a desperate need for housing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as well as in several other regions of Quebec, and that need is only being made more acute by the communities' sustained efforts to attract workers.

What of the federal government's solutions to this problem? There are none. The federal government has not proposed any. I would, however, like to highlight a local initiative undertaken by the Fondation Martin-Bradley. They organized a radiothon and raised $301,000 to, among other things, build housing for people who are struggling, especially people living with mental health problems.

The Fondation Martin-Bradley got things done. I am thinking especially of Ghislain Beaulieu, and of Jean-Yves Morneau and his son, Jean-François, who organized a fundraiser among the region's entrepreneurs and businesspeople. The amount raised, $301,000, is huge, and I want to salute them. Among other things, the funds will go to finance projects, like for farm outreach workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue's farming community, for whom psychological support is so essential. I have to say it again: All this stems from the fact that the federal budget does nothing to address the situation.

Legitimate transfer payments to Quebec to encourage housing initiatives are both slow to come and hugely insufficient. Not enough construction is happening, which is having a direct impact on the economic and social development of our regions and Quebec as a whole.

Out of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, more substantial amounts need to be transferred, especially considering the current context, which includes the significantly higher cost of materials and labour. At the same time, tax incentives for developers would be a way to support and stimulate infrastructure initiatives that offer exciting opportunities for the recovery by building on what has been achieved in our communities, not to mention community-based housing projects that would provide a sustainable solution to this problem.

Finally, why will Ottawa not allocate funding for the regions, with no strings attached, to be administered by Quebec and people on the ground? This would encourage development projects based on specific parameters and priorities linked to specific needs. More than ever, labour shortages are hindering the economic recovery of my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. More than ever, the federal government needs to come up with solutions, because we are feeling abandoned right now.

I believe that the particular status of a region like Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which borders Ontario, places it in a certain situation. People back home are moving to the riding of the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing because immigration cases are processed in 12 months in Ontario, whereas in my riding it takes up to 27 months, or even 30 months in certain cases. That is ridiculous.

As I was saying, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue there is a housing shortage coupled with a labour shortage, and therefore it is important to stimulate housing construction. How can we attract and keep skilled workers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue when they are unable to find a home for their families? The federal government must act quickly.

Bill C‑30 also attacks Quebec once more and its securities regulator. That is unacceptable.

How can we ignore one of the federal government's most blatant centralizing moves in recent years, its attempt to bring the financial sector under federal control by making it responsible for insurance, securities, derivatives, deposit taking institutions except for banks and the distribution of financial products and services?

The objective of this Canada-wide securities regulator is another example of the centralization of financial markets by the federal government. It wants Toronto to become a single Canada-wide regulator, which would be contrary to the independent economic development of all the other provinces. This is not just a jurisdictional dispute or a squabble between the federal and provincial governments, it is a battle between Bay Street and Quebec.

I remind members that the Bloc Québécois and Quebec are strongly opposed to this. Four times now, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously called on the federal government to abandon that idea. It is no exaggeration to say that everyone in Quebec is against it. Seldom have we seen Quebec's business community come together as one to oppose this very bad idea of the federal government, which just wants to cater to Bay Street.

Let the federal government and Bay Street take note: The Bloc Québécois will always stand in the way of creating a single Canada-wide securities regulator.

Having a financial markets authority is essential to Quebec's development. This is nothing short of an attack on our ability to keep our head offices. Preserving Quebec's distinct economic pillars is essential to our development. We will not let the federal government get away with this.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm the third or fourth to speak, so a number of things I wanted to mention have already been said.

I was going to say that we should absolutely continue to sit through the summer to do the environmental study, but I don't think I would have overwhelming support. Of course, I am kidding.

As I think I mentioned a couple of times during the session, I am a new member of Parliament learning my job. It has been a real privilege to serve on this committee. I don't mean this in a negative way, but you've all heard stories about other committees where things don't always work out the same way. As Ms. Rood said so well, we are a great example of how politics can be done differently to advance the cause, for the good of the people and for the good of the agriculture and agri‑food community. I think we can all be very proud of ourselves.

My thanks to all my colleagues from the bottom of my heart, because even though we really disagreed at times, we always worked in a very respectful way, and a lot of that is because of the chair.

Before I say a few words about the chair, I also want to talk about the staff. As a francophone Quebecker, I am extremely impressed with the quality of service. As you know, we have made motions to ensure that the language is respected, and this has not always been easy because of technological problems. I would like to acknowledge the dedication and perfectionism of the staff of the House of Commons. I am referring to the interpreters, who often had to translate extremely technical discussions. I am actually quite comfortable in English, but I still lack a lot of vocabulary. In order to fully understand the issues and to be able to present my vision, it was essential for me to have access to effective and clear interpretation, and this was always the case. So I thank the interpreters very much.

I would also like to thank the clerk and all the other staff members, who always gave us an extremely warm welcome, whether in person or online. I feel extremely fortunate to have been able to benefit from that.

Of course, I also want to thank the staff of the political parties. Someone mentioned earlier that there was no break last summer, and there was no break for the staff either. In some cases, they had even less of a break than we did because they often have several committees to oversee. I raise my hat to them.

In closing, I will turn to you, Mr. Chair. I want to give an example of your openness. I remember the discussions I had with you in the early days. I always felt very welcome. You also always made sure that you allocated the speaking time fairly, which was not easy in virtual mode, given the time lags caused by the interpretation, which are perfectly normal. When a speaker finishes a sentence, the interpreter has to continue the sentence, so we lose 5, 10 or 15 seconds each time. You were really extraordinary in this respect. I was a little bit grumpy a few times, but it was exceptional.

I wish you all the best for the future. It would be nice to see you again in the fall so that we can continue to work on all the bills that are being considered, many of which deal with agriculture. I would like to give a nod to my buddies on Bill C‑216, which has not yet been referred to the House by the committee. I hope it will be done before the summer adjournment. If not, I hope it will be in the fall.

I will stop here, because I realize I am talking a lot.

In short, it has been a great pleasure to serve on this committee and I congratulate us collectively on our co‑operation. The last amendment is a very good example of that. We had three or four completely opposing positions and we ended up with a common position, because the members of the committee listen to what members of other parties are saying, think about it and analyze the information, rather than getting stuck on one position. If this were the case all the time in Parliament, we would have passed more bills in this session, my friends.

It will be a great pleasure to see you all again, hopefully in person.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Shall the bill carry?

(Bill C-216 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Welcome to this meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I'm thrilled to be able to call the meeting to order.

This meeting is being held pursuant to the order of reference of January 25, and the order of reference sent to the committee on March 10.

The committee is resuming its study of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

With us today we again have the officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Global Affairs Canada, and, of course, our House of Commons legislative clerk to assist us during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

We will start to deal with Bill C-216 now.

Therefore, I will call clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry? Is there any debate on this clause?

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, did you want to speak to this or were you raising your hand to vote?