Bill C-208 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act in order to provide that, in the case of qualified small business corporation shares and shares of the capital stock of a family farm or fishing corporation, siblings are deemed not to be dealing at arm’s length and to be related, and that, under certain conditions, the transfer of those shares by a taxpayer to the taxpayer’s child or grandchild who is 18 years of age or older is to be excluded from the anti-avoidance rule of section 84.‍1.

Taxation

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when food insecurity is skyrocketing and millions are lining up at food banks, the government is bringing forward a punishing capital gains tax hike that would disproportionately affect family farms and small business. According to the Grain Growers of Canada, it will amount to a 30% increase on what farmers have to pay Ottawa when they pass on their family business to their son or daughter.

The Conservatives have fought hard to preserve family farming, including by passing Bill C-208 in the last Parliament, but the Liberals are trying to undo it with a punishing capital gains tax hike. It is like they are trying to outlaw family businesses. If families cannot afford to farm, it will lead to more industrial farming and higher food costs.

Why is the government trying to kill family farms when all they want to do is put high-quality, affordable food on our tables? How is any of this fair?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to wish my amazing wife, Cailey, and our beautiful daughter, Maeve, a happy Valentine's Day. I love them both, and I cannot wait to see them and celebrate.

I am going to speak from the heart a little on this one, it being Valentine's Day. It is something that is extremely close to my heart. I have been involved in the efforts to eliminate the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for grain drying for many years, going back to Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament. I worked for the Grain Growers of Canada prior to this.

This is a good piece of legislation. It should not be political. This is about fixing a policy that does not make sense and that simply punishes our farmers. Grain growers, when they have a wet year, have no choice but to store their grain at the appropriate moisture level. They do this by drying it, and the only sources to do that are propane and natural gas. In just the same way, our livestock producers are forced to use those fuels to heat and cool their livestock operations for the welfare of the animals.

This is a common-sense carve-out that would leave money in the pockets of farmers to reinvest in their own operations, to reinvest in their own communities and to lower the prices of food for Canadians. It amounts to $1 billion; it was the intention of the bill to allow our farmers to maintain that in their pockets. The amended version of this bill removes about $900 million of that, because the Senate gutted it.

Let us just go back through how we got to where we are. This was supported by parties across this chamber, and even some Liberal MPs. It was supported by the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and even the Green Party members, recognizing the importance of this legislation to Canadian producers and to Canadian consumers. The members acknowledged that this carve-out made sense.

Things got political, though. When it got to the Senate, of all places, that so-called chamber of sober second thought had a whole bunch of political manipulation involved with it that caused absolute mayhem. The fact is that we are in no man's land here, with debate potentially never ending, thanks to the Liberal government and its intrusion into that so-called independent Senate.

The reality is that, after we got through the House, the bill went to the Senate. The senators tried to amend it at the senate committee with the exact same amendments that were tried in this chamber, but the Liberals could not find a dancing partner. All the other parties realized that this is good policy; only the Liberals stood in the way of it.

However, in their back pocket, the Liberals had the so-called independent Liberal, not by name, senators that they could manipulate. In fact, the environment minister even admitted that he called six of them. At our environment committee, I asked for the names of the six senators. He promised to get back to me, and after 49 days, he came back with three names. I guess he forgot, and guessed up, how many senators he tried to corner into moving and passing amendments at the committee stage and at the broader Senate chamber to try to gut this bill.

The Prime Minister's Office and the radical environment minister did everything they and their government could to force the Senate to gut this bill. The environment minister just loves the carbon tax and put his entire credibility and career on the line, saying that he would resign if there was an additional carve-out for farmers. That is how we have arrived at where we are today.

This, from the Liberals, should not be surprising. They are fully committed to a policy that is failing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This carbon tax scam is raising the price of everything, making us all poorer, making us less competitive and driving down profits for our farmers.

It is not surprising, because this is the Liberal government that called all farmers and small business owners “tax cheats”. The same government voted against a common-sense piece of legislation, Bill C-208, that would have aided in the transfer of farms from one generation of a family to the next. It came up with a crazy idea to reduce the amount of fertilizer we use in this country by 30%, following Europe's lead. Europe is a continent that went from being a net exporter to a net importer of food; it is reliant on other nations for its energy, in this case, terrible aggressors, namely Russia.

We are going down an awful path as it relates to our food and fuel in this country, so it should come as no surprise that the government stands opposed to such common-sense legislation. Frankly, the Liberal record on agriculture and rural issues is horrendous. It is appalling. That is part of the reason I went from being an advocate, working on behalf of farmers as a representative of the industry, to wanting to put my name on a ballot and come here. I thought I could do more from the inside to stand up for our rural communities and farmers. That is what I am proudly doing today and will do every day for the rest of my time in this place.

The government seems to think it can rebrand the carbon tax or the rebate cheques to people and that they will somehow change their minds about this. People know better. They know that the carbon tax is failing them in every facet of their life and simultaneously not reducing emissions. We went from being ranked 58th to 62nd in the world because of our environmental outcomes. We have become worse under this government, yet it stands by its failed policies, which are making us all poor.

I would encourage the Liberal MPs who do not have the opportunity to represent farmers and probably deny them meetings when asked to come and explain their situation, to pick up the phone and call a farmer. I will provide a few phone numbers if they want. It will be the best five minutes of their life when they get the chance to ask them what they think about the carbon tax, or better yet, when they ask them why they are paying a carbon tax on drying their grain, why they are drying grain and why they need temperature-controlled barns. They should ask them what they think of the 5% GST they pay on the carbon tax specifically, the revenue-neutral carbon tax that has just collected an extra 5% for the government, which needs it here in Ottawa for its political pet projects more than Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers do, who are paying higher prices at the grocery store.

They would also be able to tell MPs stories about the innovations and strides that have been made by our producers across this country over the last number of decades. It is hard to recognize a farm from a few decades ago, from the improvements in seed and livestock genetics to the vast improvements in equipment and machinery, the tractors and combines, the data collection and the focus on increased yields while reducing emissions. In fact, we have doubled our production in this country since 1997, while our emissions have stayed the same.

That is what we should be looking at. The emissions intensity of our production in this country is something we should be proud of. We are better than other countries around the world at growing food. It is something we should be standing up for. We should be taking down barriers and roadblocks. We should be enabling trade. We should be enabling our producers to sell their products around the world at a profit to reinvest in their own operations and communities. Instead, we focus on anti-competitive measures that push businesses south of the border and make it harder for farmers to make a living in this country.

Our farmers, of all types, are the true conservationists. They are the ones on the ground. They are the ones focused on making sure that their land is better off when they leave it than how they found it, because it makes sense. It is common sense for them to make sure they can maximize production on their land. This land is passed down from generation to generation. They are proud of it, and they want to protect it.

At the end of the day, there is no good reason to support this gutted bill. The farmers know that. Every member in the House absolutely should know that. It should not be about politics. It should not be about the Liberals deciding that 3% of Canadians should get a break on the carbon tax on their home heating oil while our farmers have to pay more because of the Liberals' political hides being on the line.

This is good legislation, as drafted and unamended, to save farmers $1 billion. I urge my colleagues of all political stripes to listen to our farmers and the organizations that represent them, do the right thing, pass this bill without the Senate amendments and send it immediately back to the Senate, which should also do the right thing and pass this legislation as Parliament has asked it to.

Taxation

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have to present is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the tax regime that favours selling a small business or farm to a family member over a stranger. They are concerned that family ownership and long-term business stability is weakened by the current tax rules. The folks who have signed this petition note that small businesses are the backbone of our economy and communities.

The average age of the Canadian farmer in 2016 was 55 years old, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture estimates that $500 billion in farm assets are set to change hands in the next 10 years. Therefore, the folks who have signed this petition call on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to support and quickly pass Bill C-208, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation, which would ensure that farms and businesses can be transferred to the next generation without having to worry about unfair tax treatment, and to ensure that family-owned small businesses and farms are encouraged, supported and that the red tape would be eliminated.

Food Day in Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is clearly in favour of establishing a food day. It was a pleasure to address this in committee, and it passed within minutes. It is not controversial.

The bill states that “Canada’s national sovereignty is dependent on the safety and security of our food supply”, that it “contributes to our nation’s social, environmental and economic well-being”, that it is important to support local farmers and that local foods need to be celebrated. All that is wonderful.

Unfortunately, I will be a bit of a killjoy this morning, because it is just lip service. Yes, we will vote in favour of the bill because it is important to establish this day. I think that we will be able to use it as a springboard for future initiatives; however, in reality, our agricultural industry is currently suffering. In response to the significant inflationary pressure, the Union des producteurs in Quebec and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture sent out messages and letters and expressly asked for meetings. Their requests were very, very reasonable and based on facts and data. They even made pre-budget requests, because they know how things work. They know when they need to do this.

There was very little in the budget; next to nothing, in fact. There was some clarification about Bill C-208 on farm succession after more than a year of waiting and more than a year of frozen transactions, especially in Quebec. That takes time. That was positive, but as for the rest, all we got were vague figures and the continuation of existing programs that barely work or are not working at all. I will provide some statistics. The people at UPA explained it for us.

The cost of inputs has risen by 43.3% overall, but in agriculture, it is up 69%. Inflation has risen by 55.4% on average, but in agriculture, it is up 64%. That refers to the cost of everything required to produce food. The increase in interest rates and the cost of debt servicing comes to 36.9% overall, but 58.5% in agriculture, because farms have a high debt load. As the previous speaker mentioned, gone are the days of pitchforks; Technologies have evolved and farmers now need tractors, which are expensive. We see farmers working in their fields and we think they are doing fine, but they still have not paid off their equipment. These producers are going into debt to feed us. I really want people to start understanding that, believing it and taking appropriate action.

The costs do not stop there. Transportation costs have risen by 33% in other sectors, but 49.9% in agriculture. Insurance costs have increased by 31.7% overall, but 49.6 % in agriculture. The list goes on. Things have reached a point where two out of 10 farm businesses are now in poor or very poor financial shape. We are talking about 20% of farms. Five out of 10 farm businesses expect their financial situation to deteriorate in the next twelve months. Three out of 10 businesses have a negative residual balance. Things are not going well. Four out of 10 farm businesses report that rising interest rates could prevent them from meeting their financial obligations. For some, this will mean shutting down. More than six out of 10 businesses plan to reduce or delay investments because they are straining just to keep up with their payments. In this kind of situation, investing is out of the question. The government wants these businesses to invest money and says it will help them, but they are tapped out. To grasp the reality of this situation, we have to see what is happening on the ground.

A total of 18% of businesses are considering asking their financial institution for a capital holiday. Do members understand what it means to request a capital holiday from a financial institution? It means that things are going so badly for the business that it will only pay the interest on its loans. What a great future for agricultural production. I think that, as a federal government, we have a role to play in that. I think that we could meet the needs and boost cash flow. What is more, 14% of farms plan to reduce the size of their business because they cannot deliver. Here is the most troubling statistic: 11% of farms plan to cease operations or close their doors. That is more than one in 10 farms.

We are mainly talking here about young farmers, the ones we talk about with a tear in our eye, while saying they are so great and wonderful. Perhaps it is time for us to show them how great and wonderful they really are by helping them. Farming is an ongoing, daily struggle, and we, as elected officials, need to have the utmost respect for these people who work seven days a week.

Given the current shortage of workers in almost every sector, let us survey agricultural businesses to find out who is interested in taking over the farm, in working seven days a week, 12 months a year. Let us find out who is interested in living in uncertainty with little support from governments and in being forced to compete with foreign products that do not meet the same standards.

I do not know how many times we have talked about reciprocity of standards. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague from Beauce, who is leading this fight with me at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He often raises this issue. Something needs to be done. We cannot ask our farmers to meet very strict standards yet also let in junk. When they talk about increasing the level of glyphosate in food—like they did last year—when none of our local farmers asked for it, they are sending a very clear message, namely that we will adapt to international standards. That way, people can bring in stock with more junk than our farmers' products. Can we be serious for 30 seconds, impose the same requirements and support our people?

Chicken farmers have created a DNA test. It has been around for years, it works and it is ready to go. Why is it not in place yet? The DNA test determines whether the poultry coming in is spent fowl or fresh chicken. There is cheating in international trade. Trade is wonderful; we all need to trade, but that has to be a rigorous process.

We must not forget the most important part. There have been plenty of positive speeches and gestures here in the House of Commons, including overwhelming support from 293 members who voted in favour of the bill to protect supply management in future trade agreements. That is significant. All political parties and the vast majority of MPs supported it. Only 23 people opposed it. However, now the bill is stuck in committee. There is an obvious intent to hijack the bill, and some members are filibustering. They keep talking to kill time. Everyone's time is being wasted.

I would also point out that this is coming from a political party that is always talking about government spending. They have good reason to talk about government spending, but it is important to stop and think for a second about what it costs to have a committee meeting where the same person talks for two hours, delaying a crucial bill that we passed in 2021 but had to start over again because an election was called. Although some progress has been made and we are at roughly the same stage, the bill is currently stuck.

I do not really want to hear anyone say that the bill is going to pass anyway. Are we serious about supporting our producers? Our producers are watching us and watching the public committee meetings. They are not happy. They want transparency and honesty when it comes to support, and they want concrete action. My colleagues know that it is important to protect food security. I talk a lot about food resilience, food sovereignty. It really is important.

In closing, I would like to remind all my colleagues how much this reality hit home during the pandemic. This is a very serious issue. It is not just unpleasant for key sectors to be reliant on outside sources, it is actually very bad. I am talking about medical equipment, masks, ventilators. I am talking about food. That is basic. When we talk about key sectors, feeding the public is the foundation of everything. I am very pleased to support this bill. A food day will be wonderful. It needs to be used as a launch pad for what comes next. Let us do something meaningful and put our words into action.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, the next generation of farmers is under threat at a time when the price of land has spiked by 248% in 10 years. The House passed Bill C‑208 some time ago to make it easier to transfer a farm between members of the same family, but no one is benefiting from that because Ottawa keeps promising to amend the legislation without ever actually doing it.

If they sell their farm to their family, as permitted under law, farmers are afraid they will be hit with a tax bill if the federal government changes the rules mid-year.

Can the minister confirm that they will not be retroactively penalized?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was a most interesting exchange. Maybe we can get into it later in questions.

Our Conservative Party motion we are debating today is an opportunity for all members of Parliament, even those in the Liberal backbenches, to stand up for their constituents. I know it would take courage, but I urge each and every one of them to do the right thing. If we can pass this motion, it would send a clear message and a strong signal to the Prime Minister that his government needs to get serious about the dramatic rise in the price of food. It would also send a signal to our entire agriculture and agri-food sector that the House of Commons will not sit idly by. We must do everything in our power to stop the Liberal government from making it more expensive for them to produce the food that Canadian consumers rely on.

There is a cost-of-living crisis for millions of Canadians. Our Conservative team gets up every single day in this House to fight for them, and sadly all we hear are empty Liberal talking points with no solutions. Just yesterday the Bank of Canada raised the interest rate another half a percentage point. First-time homebuyers are now paying $500 more a month in monthly payments for the same mortgage they had a year ago, and it now takes 67% of their income to service a traditional mortgage.

With these relentless rate hikes, more and more already struggling Canadians will have to choose between paying their mortgage and putting food on the table. Canadians are out of money, and the Liberal government is out of touch. We can just look at the number of credit card applications this year over last year. A report the other day had it at a 31% increase.

Like all MPs in the House, I am getting emails and calls from moms and dads who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on their tables. I am hearing from seniors who worked decades to save for their retirements, only to see inflation eradicate their income and their financial security. Every time families and seniors go to the grocery store, they get sticker shock. It is expected the average family will pay an additional $1,065 for groceries next year. It is no wonder that one in five Canadians is already skipping meals and a record one and a half million Canadians are visiting food banks every single month.

Our Conservative opposition day motion would not only help reduce the cost of food for families and seniors, it would pour water on the fire of government-induced inflation.

I farmed all my life. It is what I know best. I also represent countless farm families and hear from them every day. They find it reprehensible that the Liberal government is determined to make it more difficult for them to produce the food we eat. It is simply unconscionable that their own government is implementing policies that are making it more expensive for them to farm and stay competitive.

Farmers will never forgive the Liberals for calling them tax cheats, and they will never forget how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture voted against my private member's bill, Bill C-208, which my colleague referred to earlier, that made it easier to transfer their farm to the next generation. The one little correction is that it is working. It is out there today and farmers are taking advantage of it, but they are only 3% of the small businesses in Canada. There are 97% of the small businesses in Canada that are not farms, and they are also getting the opportunity to level the playing field, because nobody is getting an advantage here. It is just a levelling of the playing field under Bill C-208.

Returning to the farming industry, farmers are livid that the Liberals recently voted against the Conservative bill to completely exempt them from the carbon tax. We live in Canada, where it gets cold and wet. Farmers need to dry their grain and heat their livestock barns. Farmers are getting punished through no fault of their own.

As the recent “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” stated, a typical 5,000-acre farm, which has been alluded to today many times and of which there are many across the Prairies, will have to pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year, once the Liberals triple their carbon tax.

When I was a farm leader, I recognized that there is 100 million acres of arable farmland on the Prairies. If that was an average rate, it would require that $3 billion be taken out of the farm pockets and added to the cost of food. I want to remind the Minister of Agriculture that every time the cost of growing food, processing food and transporting food goes up, we see those costs borne out in our grocery store receipts.

Our Conservative motion aims to resolve the long-standing issue of the Liberal carbon tax being one of the cost drivers that is making Canada less competitive and making food more expensive. On the first issue, farmers have seen their input costs soar, which includes energy and fertilizer. With the Liberal carbon tax being applied to many aspects of our agriculture and transportation sectors, it is making farmers less competitive on the world stage.

Lots of farmers in my region experienced a wet spring and had to rely on aerial application services. Those companies pay the Liberal carbon tax, which is passed down to the farmer.

Many farmers get custom haulers to take their grain, oil seeds and pulses to the elevator or their final destination. Those companies pay the Liberal carbon tax, and it is passed down to the farmer.

Most farmers use fertilizer to increase their yields. Those companies that produce and transport the fertilizer pay the Liberal carbon tax, which is passed on to the farmer.

I could go and on, but it is clear that the Liberal government does not know how farmers operate. Almost every product that a farmer needs to purchase to plant a crop, maintain a crop and then harvest a crop gets transported in from somewhere, and the Liberal carbon tax is applied to all of it.

The beef and pork producers in my riding also feel the brunt of the Liberal carbon tax. The trucking companies that haul the supplies they need to run their farms and ship their livestock pay the Liberal carbon tax, and it is passed on to the farmer.

If members are starting to see a trend, it is that a significant portion of our agriculture sector is paying the carbon tax.

As our leader said, our Conservative team wants to repatriate food production by standing with our farmers here at home. The Liberal government's high energy taxes and proposed fertilizer emissions cuts will only drive food production abroad to higher-polluting foreign jurisdictions, which would have them then burn fuel to send that food by ship, train and truck back to us. Our Conservative team wants to repeal these taxes and fertilizer mandates to get out of the way and get off the backs of our farmers.

It is no wonder the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that families are seeing a net loss thanks to the Liberal approach. Families and seniors are getting crushed, and it is time for action. They are tired of the Liberals gaslighting about how much better off they are under the carbon tax rebate scheme.

Food Day in Canada Act

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today, and I would like to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill for several reasons. Obviously, designating the first Monday in August as food day in Canada is a good idea because, at that time, farmers will have just finished haying and the potato harvest is beginning. Thus, it is a very good time to have it. It is also an opportunity to address concerns that are often ignored, which is why such a day is so important.

As a society, we make the mistake of taking the agri-food and agricultural sectors in Quebec and Canada for granted. It would be a good idea to promote them more, to celebrate local food and local cuisine. The country is celebrated first and foremost around the table. It is the same all over the country, so this is a great opportunity to highlight that aspect of our happiness on this land.

Obviously, the pandemic has opened our eyes to serious problems with our food sovereignty, for example in our production chains. As a result, we have discovered that we are highly and seriously dependent on foreign countries for many aspects of our industries.

At the Bloc Québécois, obviously the agriculture and agri-food sector has always been a priority. In Quebec, we are constantly investing in food sovereignty, including by promoting our supply management system and ensuring it is protected. It is an indispensable tool for balancing our agri-food market and a system that is used as a model in several countries around the world. Canada may once again benefit from referring to Quebec on the matter. I do not mean that as a boast; well, maybe a little bit.

There are several ways to go about promoting food sovereignty in Quebec and Canada when it comes to agri-food. First, we need to secure our food chains by changing course with the temporary foreign workers program, for example. We need to make it easier for workers to access our lands. We could promote succession planning in agriculture, for example, by bringing into force Bill C‑208 on taxing the intergenerational transfer of businesses because it is much easier for a farmer to sell to a stranger than to hand over his business to his own son, which is not right. The son invests in his parents' farm his whole life, but they are unable to hand it over because the way the taxation is done does not favour that. We need to help producers and processors innovate and become resilient to climate change. We need to protect critical resources and agriculture and processing facilities from foreign investments, including under the Investment Canada Act. We need to promote human-scale farms by encouraging buying organic and buying local.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute my riding's diverse and exciting agri-food industry, which produces berries, potatoes, ice cider, wine, beer, mouth-watering cheeses and organic pork and poultry on farms all over Île d'Orléans and along the Côte‑de‑Beaupré. Throughout my riding, from Beauport to Baie‑Sainte‑Catherine, our producers' reputation is well established. I could talk about them all afternoon. It would make my colleagues hungry. It is suppertime, after all.

Now I want to talk about an equally important aspect of the agri-food landscape: seafood. Surprisingly, it is easier to buy Quebec's products in the United States or in Europe than in Quebec. Are my colleagues aware that people in Quebec and Canada consume just over 10% of the seafood our fishers harvest and that 90% of the seafood Quebeckers and Canadians consume comes from other countries?

That is appalling. As if that were not bad enough, the food safety and traceability standards that apply to fishers in Quebec and Canada, who export 90% of our resource to Europe and the United States, are significantly higher than those that apply to the imported products that make up 90% of the seafood we eat. We ship our high-quality products out, and then we eat lower-quality things from other countries. That is appalling; it makes my skin crawl.

Simply put, the quality of the food we eat in Canada is not as good as the food we export and that we supply to the international market. Quebeckers and Canadians deserve better.

Following a motion that I moved for that purpose, my fine colleagues on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, whom I thank for their valuable contributions, and I began a study on labelling and traceability. Many observations were made, some of which were worrisome, others alarming, and still others encouraging. Many solutions, approaches and suggestions were also proposed. All of this resulted in the tabling in the House in June of a report entitled “Traceability and Labelling of Fish and Seafood Products”. The government must urgently implement the committee's 13 recommendations and take real action, not just say that it has taken note of these recommendations, but actually take action.

If we want to know what we are eating and where it came from, we need better labelling and better traceability, from farm to plate for agriculture and also from boat to plate for the fisheries.

Our local products deserve to be in the spotlight. If a chef describes a menu item as “St. Lawrence halibut stuffed with northern deepwater prawns from Matane, Quebec black garlic butter and medley of local Charlevoix vegetables”, people go crazy for it. If it is described as just “shrimp-stuffed halibut”, it is not as popular. That is why it is important to promote our local products and to make them available. I think that is crucial.

When people go to restaurants, they want to eat local, they want to taste locally caught fish. When we eat foods from Quebec and Canada, we appreciate our artisans' and our experts' skill. It sustains us to take pride in discovering the quality of the homegrown products available to us and the often distinctive and exemplary practices of our food producers. We know it will be fresh. We know it is from here. We know minimal food miles mean less pollution. We know our money stays here and helps our own fishers and farmers, who, in turn, spend that money here. Buying local is all about the circular economy, and it is good for everyone. It tastes good, and it is good for society, too.

I also want to talk about by-catch. I had a jarring experience that made no sense in terms food sovereignty, and I have yet to recover from it. Fishermen have permits to fish for shrimp, for example. If they catch some halibut, redfish or squid, they are forced to take the dead fish and throw it overboard, because their permit is for shrimp. It is terrible.

In the Gaspé, if someone wants to have some fresh, local fish, they are told it is impossible. The fish they are serving comes from Norway and the shrimp comes from China. I still cannot believe it. I want the House to be aware of this very important aspect. Perhaps permits could be expanded and made more flexible, so that fishermen with by-catch could redistribute it in the area.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has done a lot of studies. We are completing a study on the right whale and are starting to realize that the expertise and knowledge of our fishers are not always truly taken into consideration. They are not always closely listened to, and yet they have concrete solutions to better understand the right whale.

In closing, everyone has to eat, so we might as well do so responsibly, taking into account our environmental footprint and the social and economic impacts of our choices.

Let us be proud of our local products, our producers, farmers, fishers and food artisans. Let us promote their products, within a balance of supply and demand, before opening up to foreign markets, which are necessary, of course, although they must not control our own supply or affect our market prices, since that would have a serious impact on our food sovereignty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. I would like to announce at the outset that the Bloc Québécois agrees that the first Monday in August should be designated food day in Canada.

There are a lot of interesting things in the bill's preamble. I think they are worth mentioning. First, it says that sovereignty is dependent on the safety and security of our food supply. It is important to keep that in mind. If we cannot feed ourselves, we cannot defend ourselves and survive.

It also states that strengthening connections from farms to tables of Canadian cuisine contributes to our nation's social, environmental and economic well-being. The closer we can bring production to the consumer, the more we will reduce the environmental impact. This cannot be done for everything, and we are not talking about extreme measures here, but it must be done as much as possible.

The next point, support for local farmers, is music to my ears. We have to provide adequate support to the people who feed us. We cannot expect them to cope with the vagaries of annual production alone. Just a few minutes ago, I was talking to a farmer who explained to me that all the extra precipitation this spring had a devastating impact on the entire season; it was so long ago that people have forgotten. Farmers had to redo their drainage to prevent future flooding. There may be years when there is not enough water. That kind of instability and unpredictability are reason enough for us to take good care of our people.

The last part of the preamble states that the people of Canada will benefit from a food day in Canada to celebrate local food. That sounds great to me. As I said, we support the bill.

In any conversation about agriculture and agri-food, food sovereignty is bound to come up. We hear that expression a lot. It is a bit overworked and gives people the impression that we are trying to be entirely self-sufficient. That is not the idea. It might be better to talk about food resiliency than food sovereignty. The idea is to ensure that we can feed our population and that farming remains a viable occupation going forward. That involves a number of factors.

I will start with temporary foreign workers. Everyone knows that our agricultural production is now dependent on this essential and valuable workforce. It is also a great way to redistribute wealth around the world. When these workers return home, they take a good income with them and a different kind of wealth and drive. It is a win-win situation. For us, it means production can continue. Otherwise, the crops would remain in the field.

However, we have to smarten up. We have been saying for years that this is not working. Quebec has asked to have full management of this program to make it more efficient, so that only one level of government manages it. I think this is a good idea. I invite Parliament to consider this option very seriously. In the meantime, there are things that can be done, like improving processing times. Why does it take so long to renew a permit? When the same worker has been coming back for 12 years, why are all the security steps repeated? It is completely ridiculous and appallingly inefficient.

I am talking about agriculture because the debate is on a food day, but there is growing number of sectors that are using foreign workers, including the entire tourism sector. We need to facilitate these operations. We need to acknowledge the state of the employment market in Quebec and Canada, this shortage that is affecting us, and recognize that we need these people. Let us be effective. Let us welcome them. It is a win-win, as I was saying.

The second point I want to address is succession planning in agriculture. I look at the governing party across the way. The Speaker does not want me to address them directly, but I am looking at them and asking them when they will adjust Bill C‑208, which was democratically voted on in the last Parliament and crossed every stage, including the Senate.

Members know that the Senate is not my favourite institution, and the senators I know are also aware of that. However, it is part of the process. The bill was approved everywhere and it must be implemented. Officially, it has been, but the minister and the government have raised some uncertainty about the transfer of these family farms that is causing significant harm to our Quebec businesses.

I have said it many times here in the House: Financial advisors recommend that our farmers wait before transferring their family farm because they are concerned about the amendment that the Liberal government wants to make.

The new alliance is like a majority government. They can do anything. I am therefore asking them to shed some light on this so that we can see what is happening and where things are going. This this law has been passed and we will not allow it not to be applied. Our next generation of farmers is important.

We spoke about our local production and feeding people. I would be remiss if I failed to mention supply management. Every time I rise, I have to mention it at least once, and I am going to talk about it again.

It is a great system that allows self-regulation within markets, and it costs nothing. These folks are not going to come up to us and ask for subsidies, because they are self-regulated and the system works perfectly. All the Canadian government has been doing for these people for the past ten years is hurting them by giving foreign countries access to these markets, which were working very well.

The principle behind supply management is about controlling the entry of goods. If the entry of goods is not controlled, it does not work. When nearly 20% of the market, for example in the dairy industry, comes from abroad, if our local producers reduce their production in a particular context, for example COVID-19, if foreign countries continue to bring in the 20%, then control no longer works. I will say it again today: We are dealing with a government that appears set on gradually eliminating this system because it does not have the courage to assume the political cost of making that decision.

We are hearing lofty words. The government says it will protect supply management, there is no problem and no more concessions will be made. If that is true, then the government can readily vote as it did the last time. I again congratulate the government and I invite it to start over. The last time, it voted in favour of our bill. If not for the unnecessary election in the midst of a pandemic, the law would probably be in effect already. Therefore, I am asking that we deal with this quickly, because it is an important sector.

The motion also mentions the environment. People increasingly want to eat healthy and organic products, but this does not exclude other products and other techniques. I believe that we must pay attention to our organic industry. Paying attention means continuing to identify foods that have been genetically modified, even with the new techniques.

As we know, there was a minor controversy recently. The Bloc Québécois does not oppose innovation, but is in favour of transparency. People must be able to choose what they eat and they need the relevant information when they eat something.

We are talking about local production, but of course we engage in international trade and will continue to do so. One thing we should do is implement reciprocal standards. Why do we allow products in if they do not meet the standards that apply to our own producers?

Something about that does not make sense. Why are we not making it possible for our consumers to know exactly what they are buying?

I challenge my colleagues to figure out where the chicken in the frozen chicken pot pie they buy at the grocery store tomorrow comes from. I challenge them to give it a try. It is not easy. Appropriate food origin labelling requires traceability. Some companies have come up with interesting innovations in that respect.

My colleague on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is also working on this. These are great ideas.

I see that my time is up. I therefore invite all my colleagues to joyfully and happily pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S‑227, an act to establish food day in Canada.

The purpose of this bill is to establish the Saturday before the first Monday in August across the country as food day in Canada.

I will say right away that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill as it addresses and highlights important issues in the lives of all Canadians and Quebeckers, issues that are ignored all too often.

The wealth of the Canadian and Quebec nations makes us take for granted the agricultural and agri-food sector. The Bloc Québécois has made the agriculture and agri-food sector a priority. We speak constantly of food sovereignty, in particular by promoting the supply management system, which is a good example.

Food sovereignty is a relatively new concept. It was first introduced by the movement known as La Via Campesina, which introduced the idea and presented it for the first time at the World Food Summit of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome in 1964. Since then, it has been championed by various movements, which have adapted it to reflect the concerns and values of their own organizations and the socio-economic situation in their country.

Over time, the Bloc has raised several issues to promote food sovereignty in Quebec and Canada. Specifically, we should be securing our food chains by giving a boost to the temporary foreign worker program; fostering the next generation of farmers by passing Bill C-208 on the taxation of the intergenerational transfer of businesses; promoting local agriculture and processing, particularly by increasing slaughtering capacity; helping farmers and processors innovate, especially when it comes to building resilience to climate change; protecting critical resources and agriculture and processing facilities from foreign investments, including under the Investment Canada Act; and promoting human-scale farms by encouraging buying organic and buying local.

The pandemic has opened our eyes to the cracks in our production chains and, especially, to our over-dependence on foreign imports for many aspects of these critical industries.

In November 2021, Quebec's agriculture minister, André Lamontagne, launched the $12 challenge, which encourages Quebec consumers to replace $12 worth of foreign products with local food during their weekly trip to the grocery store. If every Quebec household replaced $12 worth of foreign products with $12 worth of Quebec products each week, Quebec's bio-food industry could grow by $1 billion a year, and there would be an estimated $2.3 billion in annual economic benefits for the province. I encourage every Quebec family to take up the challenge.

We are spoiled. Our cuisine offers a wide variety of possibilities. It is regional and seasonal, with a touch of our multicultural history thrown in for good measure. There are blueberries from Lac-Saint-Jean, tourtière, maple syrup, shrimp from Matane, not to mention fruits and vegetables from Abitibi-Jamésie. Those are all good local products.

Buying local is everyone's business: retail stores, restaurants, caterers, canteens and food trucks, establishments that serve alcohol, food services for the health care system, schools, correctional services, municipal services, factories and businesses, day cares, hotels and other tourist sites.

It is also important to have purchasing policies that integrate the origin of products in their food supply selection criteria. Broccoli from abroad travels a long way between the field and our plate. Imagine the thousands of kilometres apples from South Africa or raspberries from Mexico have to travel before arriving in Quebec. What about all the pollution generated by the transportation of these foods, from their production to our plate?

According to a study published in 2021 in the scientific journal Nature, one-third of all greenhouse gases come from food production, especially food transportation.

Choosing to consume local products when they are available is an easy way to reduce one's ecological footprint. Buying local helps support the nation's economy and regional vitality. Everyone wins. This summer, I visited farmers' markets in Val-d'Or, Malartic and Senneterre, where people can buy foods produced close to home.

According to Statistics Canada, when the second COVID‑19 wave hit in the fall of 2020, approximately one in 10 Canadians aged 12 or older said their household had experienced food insecurity in the previous 12 months. That is unacceptable in a country like Canada.

Fortunately, Quebec is one of the provinces where the number of families experiencing food insecurity has dropped significantly. It seems likely that Quebec's progressive social safety net—its child care centres, parental leave, education system and so on—has something to do with that.

With respect to the regions, I want to talk about the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which I proudly represent, and, more specifically, Nunavik.

Despite several decades of government efforts, food insecurity remains a significant and complex problem in the north. This insecurity has to do with both the quantity and quality of food consumed and is caused by different factors such as the very high cost of living, the increasingly limited access to products from traditional subsistence activities such as fishing, hunting and gathering, a lack of knowledge of the harm and benefits of market foods, as well as the repercussions of climate change and environment pollution on the traditional food systems.

To deal with the major challenges of food insecurity in the villages in Nunavik, the development of a nordic agriculture is considered an innovative solution. Focusing also on the health and well-being of the Inuit communities, the installation of community greenhouses helps enhance the supply of local fresh produce and improves the quality of food in a sustainable way, while taking into consideration the cultural dimension of food insecurity.

The approach used in this interdisciplinary project allows a local and sustainable supply system to be built with the community and to include the contribution of a horticultural project for improving the quality of life and health of the people.

These community greenhouses also help to slightly lower the price of groceries, which cost far too much in Nunavik. For example, the people in Nunavik pay 48% more for their groceries than people in the southernmost regions of Quebec.

Some 84% of Inuit living in the Hudson Bay region of Nunavik are food insecure. Inuit people experience the highest prevalence of food insecurity of any indigenous people in Canada. It is vital to find effective ways to ensure their food security.

The bio-food industry is helping to shape Quebec's identity and contributes to its wealth. It helps feed Quebeckers with food of the highest quality. It enjoys a good reputation on international markets thanks to the uniqueness of its products. This sector is more than just an essential activity for Quebec's economic prosperity. It is intimately linked to how the land is occupied and how each region is developed.

Quebeckers are privileged to be able to count on a dynamic bio-food sector that responds to their expectations and does everything possible to meet their extremely diverse needs. This industry is well established within our territory and has a presence in markets beyond our borders. It also supplies fresh agricultural products and original, high-quality processed foods.

A food day, as proposed in Bill S-227, would showcase farmers, fishers, processors, distributors, retailers, restaurateurs and, ultimately, Quebeckers, who are growing more and more fond of Quebec products.

I know I said this before, but that is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about investigations into money laundering and recovering money. We agree with all that.

However, there is something that really bothers me. How does my colleague explain the fact that his government is not doing anything at all about tax havens? They are perfectly legal and everyone is aware of them. It is estimated that the government is losing at least $7 billion a year to tax havens.

Also, is the member not the least bit embarrassed that his government is creating uncertainty about the coming into force of the farm succession act, on the pretext that our farmers are fraudsters rather than honest people who put food on our tables? I think that is completely shameful, and I encourage him to put pressure on the government from the inside to quickly dispel this uncertainty.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This is a pleasant surprise for me. I am happy to share something with this colleague. Perhaps this is the beginning of something. We do not usually see eye to eye.

I am going to talk about Bill C-8. The main problem that we have with it is the underused housing tax, which is yet another jurisdictional encroachment.

Allow me to clarify that, fundamentally, everyone agrees on the basic principle that something needs to be done about the housing shortage and foreign speculation. On the substance, we are in perfect agreement. The problem is how to go about it.

The Standing Committee on Finance heard from constitutional expert Patrick Taillon, who explained that the tax was legal, but that the problem lies in using the tax as a way to regulate the sector. We agree, so we think this must be done in collaboration with the municipalities, and especially with the provinces and Quebec. We are seriously concerned about this, and it is going to be a big stumbling block for us when it comes time to vote.

As usual, as the party that believes in constructive, positive, sensible opposition, the Bloc Québécois suggested adding a clause requiring the agreement of the cities involved. Our suggestion was rejected, so we have no choice but to oppose the measure.

There are other things missing from Bill C‑8, such as measures to address the labour shortage. Everyone knows that I am a good sport in Parliament, because I am willing to acknowledge the positives. I will acknowledge that there are things in the budget that will help, particularly when it comes to immigration. However, this is an urgent matter, and I do not think that enough is being done to address it.

The number of calls we are getting about delays is absolutely staggering. Money has been announced, of course, along with a lot of good intentions, but something needs to be done quickly. Processing times are atrocious. The government is all smiles as it makes big announcements to the media, promising to do this or that, which sounds good, but, months later, nothing has changed.

Take, for instance, the increase in the cap on temporary foreign workers in the agri-food industry, which was announced in August but did not end up being implemented until late January. That is too long. The government needs to be more efficient.

We have other ideas for measures to address the labour shortage, such as tax credits for people aged 65 and over. I see that as a simple measure that everyone would support right away. I look forward to seeing that implemented, but it has not happened yet.

We can be creative. Why not bring in a tax credit that would apply once a certain threshold of hours is exceeded in a given week? Let us sit down and get to work, because our entrepreneurs need these workers.

There is also the whole issue of the supply chain. I am willing to believe that Bill C-8 was prepared some time ago, since it has been around for a while now. On this point, I agree with my Liberal friends. However, we can always improve things, especially in the next Parliament, in order to do something to help our farmers.

There has been a lot of talk about agriculture today, particularly about an additional credit for the carbon tax, but now we have other problems, such as the fact that fertilizer from Russia is now subject to a 35% tax. This will have repercussions on all of eastern Canada, which gets its fertilizer from Russia.

We had meetings with the parliamentary secretaries and ministers to explain the situation, and they told us that they would always be there, that they would monitor the situation and act accordingly.

We need to do something, because our constituents are sounding the alarm. We raised the issue in question period last week, because this is ultimately going to have an impact on the cost of groceries, and that affects everyone.

There is nothing about tax havens either; it boggles my mind. Every time that we talk about the budget or the money available to deliver services to the public, I am sorry, but I cannot not talk about tax havens. It is estimated that at least $7 billion is lost to tax havens every year. These amounts are rather fuzzy because nobody is sure of what is really going on.

At the same time, the government is dragging its feet on bills such as Bill C-208, which deals with the next generation of farmers. This is about agriculture. If we respect our farmers and want to provide for the next generation, we have to get rid of the vagueness surrounding this bill. I just quickly touched on this, but I hope that the government will hear my message.

I did not bring up compensation for people in supply managed industries either. Wherever it is paid out, we will be happy, but it has to be paid somewhere.

Let us talk about health transfers. How can we not talk about them? We are being praised for bringing in a dental plan. Again, the same principle applies as to the underused housing tax. We all agree on the substance, but there are areas of jurisdiction in this federation, and they are the responsibility of the provinces. Why not increase health transfers to the provinces and Quebec, which is something they have been calling for?

When we talk about health transfers, we are talking about increasing the federal portion to 35% of expenditures, or $28 billion per year, which represents $6 billion for Quebec alone. That needs to be ongoing funding, not just a sexy press announcement about a one-time shot of $2 billion to show just how generous the fine Canadian government is. That is smoke and mirrors. The pandemic was temporary, but the problems with the health care system have long been an issue and they are not going away.

Of course, then there are seniors. Those 65 and older suffered the most during the pandemic. The government still has its head stuck in the sand.

I see people are looking at me with interest. Earlier, when I was being asked questions, I was expecting to hear that they were there for seniors, that they increased old age security starting at age 75 and that they handed out $500. Those are all temporary measures. We want to see an increase to old age security starting at age 65 so that we do not have two classes of seniors. That is important.

There are other measures in Bill C‑8, including the underused housing tax. We have expressed our reservations about who would implement it and how it would work. Essentially, will a 1% tax actually be effective, considering countries like France have taxes as high as 12% or 13% the first year and 25% the second year? That may be more effective. Why not go a bit further? Again, it is all in the execution.

As far as help for businesses is concerned, we also agree. It is good that the deadline for repaying Canada emergency business account loans has been pushed back, but that is not enough. We have proposed other measures.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also sounded the alarm, saying that its members are struggling. They have taken on heavy debt loads, and the concern is that many of these businesses will not weather the crisis.

For example, why are we not providing more support to brick-and-mortar businesses facing unfair competition from e‑commerce? That could be a solution. We could also decide to make a larger share of the loan non-refundable. Why not help businesses set up online purchasing and electronic marketing so they can compete?

There is also the issue of shipping costs. I do not understand why it only costs $2.50 for a Chinese company to send a package to Canada when it costs me $20 to send a package to Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Something is not right. Can we help businesses with shipping?

There is also the $2 per book to help bookstores.

These are all Bloc Québécois proposals. These are suggestions we have made, and we will be there to collaborate if the government wants to make improvements.

Some members have given speeches about agriculture and education and a tax credit for electronic devices. These are good measures, but they are too small. Let us get serious and provide appropriate support to our farmers and teachers.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about budget 2022. I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for sharing his time with me.

Budget 2022 is, ostensibly, “a plan to grow our economy and make life more affordable”. I doubt anyone will be surprised to hear me heave a sigh of exasperation. As I will show in my speech, there are still far too many who are not getting any help to make life more affordable.

Only one of our five unconditional demands was met: housing for indigenous communities. The government is planning to invest $4 billion over seven years starting in 2022-23 through Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to accelerate work on housing.

I applaud this initiative because I know it is essential to put an end to violence against indigenous women and girls. I was just at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we discussed this issue. There is no way we will be able to extricate these women from the cycle of poverty without providing them with adequate, affordable housing.

That said, the government does not understand that Canadians gave it a minority mandate, that they did not want to give it a blank cheque, and that they did not want to let it scatter money willy-nilly and in areas of jurisdiction that are none of its business.

I am forced to see the glass as half empty today and criticize what is not in the budget. In particular, I want to talk about seniors, our health care system, and economic development in areas still affected by the pandemic and recovering from the crisis. As the critic for seniors, I will begin by highlighting the complete lack of help for seniors.

We had made help for seniors one of the five prerequisites for passing this budget. To add insult to injury, in addition to not announcing anything new, they included a chart to tell seniors that they do not need any additional help. The government should tell them that while looking them straight in the eye and trying to explain why they are still being discriminated against based on their age.

For the rest of this part, I will let our seniors speak. Here are the words of those I have met over the past few weeks who are not happy: “Why do the Liberals insist on dividing us?” “I may get sick before I'm 75”; “My car will soon give out on me and I won't be able to get around. How will I maintain my independence?”

Take Michel and his wife Josée, or even France, for example. These three retirees feel penalized by the lack of federal government assistance for people between the ages of 65 and 75. They tell us that they want to enjoy life, that they have needs and that they want to help restart local economies.

An organization in my riding, SOS Dépannage, told me that there has been a sharp rise in the number of seniors relying on food assistance. Do we really want to reduce seniors to standing in line for food hampers?

Contrary to what the NDP-Liberal alliance is saying, it is not dental insurance that seniors want to talk to me about. Besides, this dental plan comes without any transfers to Quebec and it would not cover seniors until 2023.

Seniors need more money in their pockets now. It is not to invest in tax havens; rather, it is simply to be able to age with dignity. It is nice to have great teeth, but that means nothing if you cannot afford groceries at the end of the month. It is not a year from now that seniors will be hungry. They are going hungry now.

As I said, poverty does not wait until people reach the age of 75. In fact, a petition is currently being circulated calling on the government to reverse its decision to increase the pension of those aged 75 and over, known as older seniors, by 10%. Instead, petitioners are asking for an increase of $110 per month in the old age security pension beginning at age 65.

People lined up at the Tim Hortons restaurant across from my office in Granby last week. People do not want this unfair two-tier senior system. I also had some nice conversations with seniors in Drummond. The meeting was organized by the Centre‑du‑Québec branch of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées. That was also where I heard many of these first-hand accounts.

Many people feel passionate about signing this petition, which I am sponsoring and which was initiated by Samuel Lévesque. Petition e‑3820, which can be found on the House of Commons website, aims to support the Bloc Québécois's demand for a permanent and lasting increase in old age security benefits for everyone 65 years of age and older.

The FADOQ also said that the government broke its own election promises. There is no additional credit for home support, no tax credit for experienced workers, nothing at all. There is no increase in the old age security pension for seniors 65 and older in the budget. In fact, there is nothing. The government instead proposes the creation of a panel tasked with studying the idea of an allocation for seniors wishing to grow old at home.

Once again, if the Liberals truly wanted to help seniors stay in their homes, they would have increased health transfers.

In the second part of my speech, I will talk about another major omission in this budget: health transfers. There is no increase in transfers to 35% of costs as requested by Quebec and the provinces. “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes for Canadians”. That does not mean anything. There is no commitment to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers to 35%. This request also has the support of many seniors groups.

Quebec and the provinces do not need to be told what to do by know-it-all Ottawa. There is nothing on the increase to health transfers yet the government keeps repeating and boasting about the same points.

In the third part of my speech I want to talk to my colleagues about the recovery for some sectors that are still very much affected, because the government missed some perfect opportunities.

I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé cares a great deal about the agricultural sector, because this sector is also very important to Shefford's economy. There is not much in the budget for this sector, however.

When I travel around my beautiful riding of Shefford, people often bring up the agricultural sector. People wanted to see some innovative and bold measures. At the very least, the government should have considered improvements to existing programs like AgriStability and AgriInvest. My colleague has already spoken extensively about that.

The agricultural sector also wants something like the agri-green program, which would help producers and processors improve their operations and compensate them for good environmental practices. Aside from the second investment, the government is proposing other types of investments, but it is not going far enough. The Bloc Québécois is therefore disappointed with this announcement, on which it had pinned much hope. We will see what producers and processors have to say about it. For the time being, compensation is a long time coming. The government wrote that compensation for CUSMA will be included in the fall 2022 update. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé stated, it seems that there are further delays for those hard hit by the repercussions of the last three trade agreements signed by Canada.

The situation is dragging on. I was told about this recently at the Agristars gala. The young people I met spoke to me about farm transfers and controversial Bill C-208, which would facilitate intergenerational transfers. The government is satisfied once again with conducting consultations and creating delays. It is a major step backwards for farm transfers, even though the bill was passed in the final days of the previous Parliament, after the Liberals dithered. Now, the government is delaying its coming into force. The Bloc Québécois co-sponsored Bill C-208. It is a an extremely important issue for farm succession.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss the first NDP-Liberal budget in Canada.

What a year it has been. As COVID‑19 continues to devastate the Canadian economy and our supply chains, many people in this country will struggle for many years to recover from the losses suffered over the past two tough years.

People are wondering what this budget does for Canadians. Well, it proposes higher interest rates, higher taxes, and more and more spending. At a time when Canadians could use a break, the bad news keeps piling up.

Liberal MPs will likely use the same talking points as usual when debating this subject, but they will probably not ask any questions about the following topics that I was very much hoping would be included in budget 2022.

First, I would like to discuss the rural-urban divide that seems to be growing in this country. My riding of Beauce is located in rural Quebec. It is an entrepreneurial and agricultural hub. Unfortunately, the latest budgets from the current government only make us feel further and further away from seeing any meaningful change in our region.

Why does the government continue to ignore rural Canada?

I was hoping to see some funding for public transit or additional funding for community infrastructure in this budget, but once again, we have been forgotten. Municipalities in my riding are trying to implement public transit, but they need financial support. This is something that needs to be addressed, but until the federal government is prepared to put money on the table this will remain a distant dream.

Cell connectivity in rural Canada is another issue that matters to rural Canadians and that was not mentioned once in the budget. How hard is it for the government to recognize that this is not only a matter of fairness but also of public safety?

Many municipalities in my riding do not have reliable cell coverage. This not only increases the probability of public safety disasters but also causes lost productivity for our businesses.

The government needs to sit down with the CRTC and the large telecom companies and find a way to finally provide affordable service to rural Canadians. There has to be a way to set a baseline for minimum coverage and a fair and equitable scale of payment for these services.

In my riding, cell phone bills are among the highest in the country even though we get some of the spottiest service. We must tackle this problem and improve high-speed Internet service at the same time, because they are both equally important in our regions.

Another issue I would like to tackle, which is probably the biggest problem in my riding, is the labour shortage. Beauce has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Canada and is constantly struggling to attract workers. In our case, the only option for many years has been to use the temporary foreign worker program. Unfortunately for us and for many other Canadian business owners, this system is broken. In recent months, the government has made some promises and some supposed changes to the program, but nothing has changed on the ground.

Let us be frank. Our country has a lot of red tape. There is paperwork upon paperwork to be done. Departments that should work together blame one another for the delays. They also blame the provinces.

The immigration department really needs to wake up. These files should be processed much more quickly. It is simple. Many businesses wait months and months to get workers. They spend thousands of dollars in government and administrative fees only to be told that the workers may never arrive or that their arrival will be considerably delayed because of problems that the government itself has created.

Many proposals with respect to agricultural and seasonal workers were brought forward at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I am a member, and elsewhere, but the situation has improved only slightly since we tabled our report.

We are also seeing numerous issues with non-agricultural workers, yet there does not seem to be any urgency on the part of this government to bring them in when they are needed.

I believe that one of the most effective ways to speed up this process would be to get rid of the labour market assessment for areas of the country where the unemployment rate is below 5%. As I have said many times, both here and in committee, this is a solution that would be fairly easy to implement. I will continue to hammer this point home until the government understands that this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.

A total of 60% of the businesses in my riding are looking for workers. At the same time, they are accelerating automation and robotics because they also need to stay competitive in the marketplace. The problem is that their margins are already very thin, and it is very difficult to invest in new technology right now.

I believe the government needs to implement better programs and incentives to help these companies modernize their production. However, until the government keeps its promises on high-speed Internet and steps up its fight to improve cell coverage, advancing robotics will remain difficult in rural ridings like mine.

The last thing I want to talk about is how this government has tragically failed our agriculture and agri-food sector. There is no money in the budget to improve and secure our country's food supply. I have always said that the agricultural sector is an economic driver just waiting to be optimized. Instead of helping Canadian farmers, the government continues to create programs that plunge them further into debt. Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, yet we are importing more and more of our food products.

The government also decided to impose a 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia without a clear understanding of whether orders placed before the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine will be exempt from the tariff or not. Spring seeding is upon us, and farmers cannot bear the burden of these tariffs alone. Obviously consumers will have to pay the additional cost.

What is more, this government continues to refuse to bring into force Bill C‑208, which was passed in the previous Parliament. This bill provides for the fair transfer of a family farm or small business to a family member, rather than charging the seller unreasonable taxes that they would not have to pay if they sold the business to a third party.

This government will do everything it can to collect as much tax as possible, even at the expense of losing our family farms and SMEs, which are so important to the development of our regions. The creation of a round table for discussing this bill, which has already passed and received royal assent, will still not force the hand of these greedy Liberals.

How can a government unilaterally decide not to bring legislation into force, when the majority of parliamentarians voted in favour of it? That is not how democracy works.

In closing, this is another budget and another complete failure by this government.

I am here once again debating with my colleagues, but I cannot help but wonder when this Prime Minister will descend from his throne and finally listen to the opposition's proposals. I can only imagine that his MPs from rural ridings feel the same way.

We are all here to do a job, to represent our constituents. The government has to focus on the divide between rural and urban regions. The time where there were two classes of citizens is over.

We must unite and make Canada the economic superpower it should be. I will continue to provide a glimmer of hope for the Beauce community. I simply hope that this government will listen to me for once.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague’s speech. He appears to be attuned to the issues of youth and the next generation of farmers. I will ask him about Bill C-208. I am assuming he is familiar with this bill, which was democratically passed in the last Parliament and should now be in effect.

The Liberal government, however, announced in its budget that it would review the nature of the bill, which would put a freeze on the transfer of family businesses. Financial advisors are telling our farmers to wait before transferring their businesses, since no one knows what the Liberal government is going to do.

That is not helping the next generation of farmers, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I would like to know what he thinks of the agricultural component of this budget. In his speech, he stated that people need to know where they are going and they need a certain predictability. That is what the farming community needs, but unfortunately the government continues to disappoint with respect to the NAFTA compensation. The government keeps announcing that the compensation is coming within the year. People have been waiting a long time. This issue must be resolved.

This type of unwarranted insecurity is affecting the next generation of farmers. It was announced that Bill C-208 would be reviewed. This bill was democratically passed in the House. This creates insecurity in the sector and, as a result, tax experts are recommending—and this is important—that our farmers delay transfers, because they are concerned about what the Liberals will do. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.