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.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

moved that Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we have heard about supply management in the House. Every time that a motion is introduced on the issue, there is a unanimous vote and it seems that the matter is settled.

In fact, the House has already unanimously adopted three motions calling on the federal government to fully protect supply management. By all accounts, however, Liberal and Conservative governments were not bound by their commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements, those with the European union, Asia-Pacific and the United States and Mexico. These agreements and the concessions that were made to reach them were catastrophic for supply-managed agricultural producers. Their revenues dropped by more than 8.4%.

Supply management has always been a key issue for the Bloc Québécois. This system was established in 1970 to stabilize the price of agricultural products and, at the same time, ensure a decent and predictable income for dairy farmers, table and hatching egg producers and poultry producers, including turkey and of course chicken.

During the time that the Bloc enjoyed a greater presence in the House of Commons and was strongly pushing for full respect for supply management, all free trade agreements with 16 different countries fully protected the supply management system. The strong pressure and numerous interventions by the Bloc made a difference.

The World Trade Organization, or WTO, was established with the goal of eliminating all tariff barriers, and the WTO considered supply management to be one of them. Protecting supply management became an even greater priority for the Bloc Québécois after the federal election that followed the system's creation in June 1977, as any occasion the WTO had to talk about it turned into a direct attack.

The Bloc Québécois was the first party to demand that the three pillars of supply management be maintained, in a motion moved by the former member for Richmond—Arthabaska, André Bellavance, in November 2005. I remind members that the House unanimously passed this motion. All parties in the House adopted André Bellavance's motion, which read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give its negotiators a mandate during the negotiations at the World Trade Organization so that, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas, so that these sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.

This motion did not have unanimous support when it was moved, but it passed unanimously at the end of the day, after different groups of producers put pressure on their members of Parliament throughout the day.

Today the Bloc wants to go further than a motion and insert protection of supply management into legislation. We want to go further because the major Canadian parties in power do not seem to feel bound by the commitment that a motion represents. I suppose they think of it as more of a wish. We want protection of supply management inserted in a statute so that it is given force of law.

Then the governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, could no longer ignore their commitments to agriculture and the producers could see who really has their interest at heart. It is important to remember that in Quebec alone, dairy, egg and poultry producers represent 6,000 farms and 86,000 jobs.

With the exception of Ontario and Alberta, all of the other provinces have supply-managed producers so it would be disastrous if supply management disappeared.

I would like to talk about the bill that I am introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. It is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to make the protection of the supply management system a responsibility of the minister. It adds supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canadian external affairs, particularly in the area of international trade.

Once the bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up to our trade partners and protect supply-managed farmers. The bill will make it part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without chipping away at the system, as he did when the three biggest international trade agreements of the past decade were signed. Of course, I am talking about the agreements with Europe, Asia-Pacific and the United States and Mexico.

Supply management is a Canada-wide risk management tool that is designed to protect agricultural markets from price fluctuations. By doing so, it guarantees a fair and stable income for farmers in exchange for their work and their products.

In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. The system is based on three basic principles, often known as the three pillars. Dairy farmers used to give their elected representatives a little three-legged stool like the ones used for milking cows years ago. If an MP displayed that symbol on their desk, it meant they supported supply management.

The first pillar is production control via a quota system. Based on research about consumption, meaning consumer demand for dairy products, the Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to each province, whose marketing boards or what are known as producer associations sell quotas to their own farmers. That ensures production is aligned with domestic demand.

The second pillar is price regulation through the establishment of a minimum price and a maximum price, so that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.

The third pillar is border control. Obviously, if we do not skew the global market, we cannot allow other countries to skew our market. That is why we use border controls to set very high tariffs and purchasing quotas to prevent foreign products or by-products from flooding our market.

For instance, there might be times when our chicken or egg farmers do not produce enough, and that is when chicken and eggs are allowed in to meet this country's needs and avoid overproduction. The principle of border control is very important and is always the one that comes under attack in international negotiations.

It is this aspect that has been weakened considerably by international agreements. Canada is opening an ever-widening door in our markets for foreign companies to sell their products here. On top of that, international trade standards are constantly seeking to reduce the tariff levels. Our largest trading partners would like to see these tariffs disappear completely, and thus abolish supply management.

For example, without supply management, an American egg producer that produces one million eggs a day could overrun the Canadian market, cut prices and ultimately take control. Border controls are very important, and that is where the government always folds. It caves, often using supply management as a bargaining chip. Since the government is supposed to represent all Canadians and since supply management is a federal program, 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.

On at least 20 occasions over the past 15 years, I have heard a prime minister or an agriculture minister commit to fully defending supply management in future negotiations of a treaty. That is not what happened in the last three agreements. The concessions made in these negotiations instead resulted in income losses for producers in the order of 8.4% to 10%. Some will say that Canada is very vast. That is the argument we are given from time to time. We are told that it is impossible to create effective Canada-wide policies that benefit all the provinces. What is more, some experts believe that applying one standardized program nationwide in agriculture or in other sectors will not stand the test of time and will make it more difficult to resolve regional problems that crop up. That was the main argument we were given for conceding part of supply management.

The second argument is that supply management does not make a substantial contribution to Canada's gross domestic product. It represents approximately 2%, so that is a good excuse for sacrificing a little bit in every negotiation. This argument fails to consider that this is a very important economic sector for Quebec and Ontario. Supply-managed goods account for about 40% of Quebec's agricultural revenues, or $3.4 billion out of $8.9 billion. Quebec's dairy sector has revenues of $2.4 billion. That is twice the amount of agricultural revenue from the pork sector, which is an excellent export sector and contributes $1.2 billion a year.

These are different agricultural markets, but the agricultural sector as a whole is very important. The problem also stems from the fact that most supply-managed production occurs in Ontario and Quebec, representing 70%. Crops such as beef, grains and oilseeds are grown for export. The government is always looking to expand markets, but supply management must not be given up in exchange for these markets. That is the problem.

Supply management has survived 16 agreements. It needs to survive any future agreements as well. This system accounts for $8.7 billion of our GDP and $2 billion in economic spinoffs. Without this policy, the agricultural sector could lose 58,000 to 80,000 jobs. On top of that, half of this country's dairy exports would be compromised.

In closing, I want to remind members that Canada is currently negotiating with five countries that are part of Mercosur, which also includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia. This bill must be passed before these agreements are concluded. I urge all members to unanimously support this bill, as we did with the previous motions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, supply management is an issue that the Government of Canada, our Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and so many others have advocated for, not only when we are in government but even in opposition, as it benefits our society to have a healthy supply management sector. In fact, if members go back to the creation of supply management, they will find that it is rooted in a Liberal government's bringing it forward. We recognized how important it was for many different reasons, which I do not think the Speaker will give me enough time to expand on.

I ask my colleague if he would recognize the value of supply management in all the different regions of our country. That is an important component of it: that it is throughout Canada and there is great benefit for all Canadians.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are regularly reviewing the supply management system, but it seems to me that they sometimes forget about that system during negotiations.

The member asked me whether this is important to all regions of Quebec. Of course it is. In Alberta, for example, there are 1,000 dairy farmers. I remember going to a cocktail party for dairy farmers during their conference in Ottawa, back when the Bloc introduced its motion in 2005. I met farmers from Alberta who came to thank the members of the Bloc for introducing the motion to fully protect the supply management system. Unfortunately, in the last three agreements, the government has made small 3% concessions, which represents about a 10% drop in revenue for all dairy farmers under supply management across Canada.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his presentation.

I would like to remind him that, when the Conservative government was negotiating free trade with our various European and Asian partners, there was a provision to pay $4.3 billion in compensation to all supply-managed producers. The current Liberal government also made compensating producers an election promise. The producers received a payment, but the rest has still not been paid out. We do not know when that will happen, because the minister is not able to tell us.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must tell my hon. colleague that he is absolutely right. I remember very well the $4.3 billion that the Conservatives promised during the negotiations with Europe. However, they were very slow to table it, and there was a change of government. The government said that it would keep that promise. Again, that is going very slowly. It is more than slow. A first instalment was paid last year, but there was nothing this year. They are now talking about $1.8 billion instead of $4.3 billion. We know that supply-managed producers are losing $450 million per year. The Minister of Agriculture urgently needs to speak with the Minister of Finance.

A budget will be tabled soon; an economic statement is coming on Monday. I hope that they will say something about this promise and that a concrete announcement will be made this year.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the government announced that it was wrapping up negotiations with the United Kingdom on another free trade agreement. We have yet to see the text of the agreement, but the government tells us that dairy farmers have nothing to worry about. I remember that when CUSMA was negotiated, there were promises up until the last minute that the agreement would not have a negative impact on dairy farmers. Does the member share my doubts about the government's fine words on this issue, and what does he think can dairy farmers expect from this agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully share the member's concerns. For now, the minister is trying to reassure us by saying that supply management is not affected by this agreement with England. Since England was part of the agreement with Europe, it should not get an extra share. England needs to get its share from Europe, nothing more, so that nothing about the Canada-Europe agreement changes. However, I still have doubts, since nothing has been signed yet and all we have is a Liberal Party promise. A little piece of supply management is always affected.

Like him, I am crossing my fingers that this does not happen. What worries me most is the negotiations that are under way with Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia, which are known as the southern countries. Supply management may be affected, particularly poultry and egg producers.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to bring greetings on behalf of the great people of Kings—Hants, even if it is virtually, but that is the world we are living in.

I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this legislation and giving me the opportunity to speak on the importance of supply management and what it means to rural communities across the country. I was a little disappointed in the member opposite's comments. He mentioned Ontario, Alberta and, of course, Quebec, but he did not mention the importance this has across the country, including the communities that I represent here in Nova Scotia. I look forward, in the next nine and a half minutes, to explaining what this industry means to the people I represent.

I grew up in a region called East Hants in the Kings—Hants area. It has the highest concentration of dairy and poultry supply managed farms east of Quebec, so this is a very important sector for us. It is also a key piece of our identity. Not only is it an economic driver in the sense of jobs and opportunities for producers, it is also a key piece of agricultural communities. This is not just in Kings—Hants. It is across the country. Going to high school, we would see tractors going up and down the road. Some of the students and colleagues that I went to high school with would bring their tractors to prom from whatever farm, but most importantly, from our supply managed sector.

I do not mean to pick on the member opposite because his intentions were good in bringing this to the House, but he mentioned at some point that this is a small percentage of our GDP. That may be the case, but $22 billion is the figure that I have in front of me, and is what the supply managed sector means to rural Canada. That is larger than the auto sector. That just shows the significance of what this means and the importance of having robust programs in place to support it.

I want to talk about the history of supply management for those who might be watching and may not know, or for some urban colleagues who might not know as much about supply management and its benefits. It was created, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned during questions and comments, in the 1970s by a Liberal government. At the time, there was a massive disconnect between the amount of supply that was being provided in the market and the prices that were being returned to producers. The reason for creating rationality was because our supply managed sectors deal with perishable products and producers may not have been able to get them to market in time. This program was put in place to make sure there was an equitable program to support farmers, but also to give the market certainty.

There have been critics. I would be naive to stand in the House, virtually, and suggest that people have not criticized this system and sought an alternative program to move forward, but I want to highlight some of the benefits of supply management. First of all, for me, perhaps most importantly, it allows smaller family farms to still be able to contribute in the marketplace. Whether it is the milk pooling agreements in the dairy sector or otherwise through the SM5, supply management allows farmers that are in more rural and remote parts of the country to have equal access to markets. That is ideologically important to me, and it is important for our economy to create that supply chain throughout rural Canada, from Newfoundland and Labrador, as we heard at the agriculture committee this evening, all the way to Yukon. This is truly a national policy that creates benefits.

I also want to talk about the importance of what this means. Before I was in the House and had the privilege of serving as a member of Parliament, I was an outspoken advocate for this system and what it represents. It truly is the lifeblood of rural communities. It is important that we are able to maintain it and keep it in place to support our farmers. I will relate a quick personal story, if I may.

I was a competitive hockey player. I played junior hockey in a small community called Amherst, Nova Scotia, and had the good fortune to be billeted at a dairy farm just outside of town in Linden, Nova Scotia. I stayed on the farm, played junior hockey and got to see the inner workings of a small family farm in rural Cumberland County. I can attest to the hard work that our farmers put in and the importance of this system, which allows farms like that to exist.

There are critics who would suggest that if we were to get rid of supply management it would actually lead to a reduction in prices at the retail level. I want to challenge some of those assumptions on the record here in the House. The ideology of some of the critics is perhaps conservative and more free-market based.

I am not against free-market principles, but there have been challenges. New Zealand, for example, went with a much more deregulated model. It got rid of some of its supply managed system and saw an increase in price at the retail level for milk supplies. We also talk about the World Trade Organization, and this is one way to support farmers to be able to create an equitable price.

There are other programs out there, such as the dairy margin protection program in the United States. Maybe some of my colleagues will recall a bipartisan fight in 2012. There was a chance the farm bill would not go through Congress at the time. There was speculation that milk prices would almost double in the United States without the subsidy provided.

In Europe, there is a common agricultural policy that provides billions of dollars every year to producers. Other jurisdictions of the world choose to go about it a different way. When we consider things like the importance of looking at the environment and having sustainable means moving forward, supply management becomes even more in vogue in how important it is to be able to match our domestic demand to supply, and for sustainability and efficiency.

I also want to challenge the notion there is not a competitive model built within the supply managed sector as it relates to the dairy industry. Many critics would suggest it is a system that allows all farmers to benefit and to succeed. It is simply not the case. The way the Canadian Dairy Commission helps set the price of milk, or I should say the kilograms of butterfat in different products, is based on a model that only allows 70% of farmers to break even after their costs of capital are considered.

This means that, for 30% of farms, if one is not good at managing costs, whether a larger farm or a smaller one, it is going to be challenging to get the money to recapitalize infrastructure. It is a myth, and I want to put on the record that there is not a competitive model built within the supply managed system.

I want to turn to why I am proud to be standing with a government that has fought since 1970 for supply management. When we look at CUSMA and what that trade relationship looks like, the president of the United States wanted to use the word dairy. This was important for him politically in being able to get concessions from the Canadian government.

I contrast that with the Conservative government under CETA and the CPTPP. At the time, I believe the member for Abbotsford was the minister responsible for international trade. It was a much different situation, in terms of pressure, and what the relationships of those trade deals meant versus our relationship with the largest trading partner in the world.

Our minister for trade at the time worked extremely hard. We did everything to keep the integrity of supply management in place. I contrast that with two trade deals that of course are important, and I would never suggest they are not, but the pressure to get rid of our supply management, or give concessions, was nowhere near the same.

When I talk with farmers in my riding, they seem to understand the difference and how the government was between a rock and a hard place, including on products and things that matter to the member from the Bloc such as aluminum, for example.

I could highlight the programs we put in place, such as the dairy direct payment program, which is certainly extremely important. It was $345 million to help compensate for the trade access that was given under the former Conservative government when it signed these, along with COVID supports.

I am proud to be part of a government focused on our supply managed producers. I mentioned dairy a lot, but that is not to say poultry, eggs, broiler hens and turkeys are not important. It is all so important and it all matters to the people I represent. I am pleased to see a piece of legislation in which we can talk about the importance of this system in rural Canada, and I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this forward.

I really appreciated the time to talk about a system that matters to rural Canadians. As the rural caucus chair for the Liberal Party, I am very pleased to bring some remarks to the House tonight.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is high time we had a man for prime minister who behaves like someone who understands the farming community and especially Canadians from rural areas.

Our message is clear and will remain clear: Canada must restore agriculture to its former glory and give it the recognition it deserves. It is just wrong that neither the current agriculture minister nor her predecessor were directly involved in the negotiations for the trade agreements that became the TPP, CETA and CUSMA.

The future prime minister of Canada, the leader of the Conservative Party, will rectify this situation. We are here tonight to talk about supply management. Before I talk about the Liberals' failures on supply management, of which there are many, I want to clearly state our party's position on supply management.

The Conservative leader made clear commitments during the leadership race. He made it clear and reiterated, in his discussions with the dairy industry, that there will be no further concessions in future trade agreement negotiations. He will protect supply management. He will respect supply management for our dairy and poultry farms and, most importantly, he will make sure that all farm families are involved in trade negotiations, or any other program affecting the sector, through the Minister of Agriculture, who will be at the table, not sitting somewhere else, away from the negotiations. He will allow more flexibility in allocating the management of farm assistance programs. He will not create a milk lottery, as the previous government did. Above all, he pledged to pay out all the promised compensation, while providing flexibility in how it is allocated so it is done in the way producers want.

Much more than that, a Conservative government will raise the possibility and want to renegotiate the overall limits on skim milk powder exports that were given away by the current government. A Conservative government will modernize and improve agricultural risk management programs to help producers deal with all the crises they are currently facing.

A Conservative government, and I think that this is very important right now, will also ask the Competition Bureau to investigate the impacts of abusive trade practices concentrated in the grocery industry. We know about it, and we are hearing about it these days: huge amounts of money are being demanded just to put products on grocery store shelves. This is unacceptable.

We believe it is very important to protect the food security of Canada and we recognize that supply management is an element that is essential to the success of Canadian agriculture.

Unfortunately, although Bill C-216 sets out to protect supply management in the context of future trade agreements, it could wind up doing the opposite.

First, everyone here in the House knows that any new trade agreement would be the subject of new legislation in which the Liberal government could amend Bill C-216 as it sees fit. That is what happened with the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. The government proved that when it shamelessly opened up supply management by giving the Americans a say in the tariff schedule and when it shamelessly allowed the United States to limit our exports of skim milk powder.

Second, if this bill passes, we can be sure that potential trade partners will target supply management right off the bat and counter with their own protectionist measures. This is like drawing the other side's attention to a specific negotiation issue that could well force Canada to agree to new concessions, which would be written into a bill approving the framework agreement, and all because we ourselves put the issue on the table.

That is exactly what happened during the latest negotiations for the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement. Members may recall that the United States' first target was Mexico.

I met with a representative of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress at the beginning of the negotiations. The message they sent us was to stay calm, but then the Prime Minister of Canada got involved.

He wanted an agreement that was progressive and environmentally friendly, and he got the attention of Donald Trump. He gave in on supply management, and Canada had to struggle just to remain in this important agreement for our economy. Dairy, egg and poultry producers paid the price as the Liberals modified the existing laws to be able to give up more of our market to the United States. This is the reality.

The main purpose of Bill C-216 is to protect supply management. That is also the Conservative Party's goal.

We do not believe that Bill C-216 is a good bill to protect supply management and Canadian producers.

It is important to protect our family farms because the Liberal Party does not keep its promises and is unreliable when it comes to its relationships with supply-managed farmers, and because farmers were regrettably the only ones who were sacrificed at the negotiating table by the Liberal government's negotiating teams for the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement.

In Quebec, you cannot go one kilometre between two municipalities without seeing farms, dairy farms and all kinds of farms. Farmers reign supreme in Quebec's rural regions. If they were not there to pay taxes, there would be no more rural regions. If they were not there to maintain roads, there would be no more rural regions. We need our farmers.

The Conservative Party of Canada heard the message of producers from all the regions in Quebec. I heard it in Mégantic—L'Érable. Like the majority of my colleagues, I received 50 or so letters from producers in my riding. We have all gotten them. Their message was very clear.

People wrote that Canada's dairy farmers have had to deal with the fact that major concessions were made in recent trade agreements. By 2024, 18% of their domestic dairy production will have been ceded to foreign dairy producers. They are the ones who will provide the milk in dairy products that will end up on the shelves in our grocery stores. The concessions amount to a loss in revenue estimated at $450 million a year for dairy farmers and their families. That loss has a major and lasting impact on their farms and their communities, including their capacity to plan for the future of their families. For more than two years, and more recently in the Speech from the Throne, dairy farmers have been promised compensation. Dairy farmers were pleased to see that full compensation remains a priority, but actions speak louder than words.

That is where things go sideways in the letter we received.

The letter goes on to say that, in 2019, the government announced compensation spread out over eight years of $1.75 billion for the CETA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Despite requests for clarification and even though the first year was delivered, the farmers have yet to receive any detail on the balance for the remaining seven years. The uncertainty that comes with such an approach makes it very hard to plan the future of their farms.

Every member of the House received the same set of letters from dairy farmers across Canada. They are worried.

The letter ends with the statement that farmers believe that a promise made should be a promise kept. The time has come to keep their promises. What are the goods? What will the Liberals deliver? The Liberals' compensation plan was announced just before the 2019 election. They promised to cut a cheque the day after the election. There has been nothing more since the election. There has been total silence. There has not been one word about the seven other years or about compensation for 2020, even though there are fewer than 40 days left in the year. There has been not one word about 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, or 2026. There has not been one word about the next phase of the plan. I am only talking about dairy producers. There has not been one word about egg and poultry producers who were also promised compensation. They have not even seen the shadow of a red cent despite repeated promises by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Dairy processors have been treated to the same worrisome silence by the Liberals, who boast about defending supply management, but only talk about it when an election is on the horizon. We may hear about it because we have a minority government and there could be an election sooner than we think. Again, the Liberals take an interest in dairy producers only when there is an election.

Did I take the time to talk about the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico? That is the most recent trade agreement where the Liberals caved on supply management. Has anyone heard the Liberal government talking about a compensation plan? Have we heard anything about the full compensation promised by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that she mentioned again today in the House? Where is their plan? The plan for the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico simply does not exist because the Liberals are incapable of keeping their promises.

The Liberals are all talk and no action. We cannot trust them. At minimum, farmers should be able to get answers from the government to ensure the economic viability of their farms. That is the top priority for helping them to get through the pandemic.

I would like to end with a quote from the chair of the Producteurs de lait du Québec, who aptly described farmers' immediate needs. He said:

We should not have to fight this battle over again every year to obtain compensation that was already announced! Our farms also have to budget and need to know whether they can count on the money that was promised to them for the next seven years.

The Liberals are incapable of keeping their promises, but the Conservatives will keep their promises to supply-managed farmers.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to talk about Canada's supply management system and to support a bill that will prevent the government from further undermining the agricultural sector during free trade agreement negotiations.

Supply management is very important to a number of agricultural sectors in Canada. It ensures a decent income for farmers and fair prices for consumers. It is part of a vision for a more co-operative economy.

Supply management is also part of the NDP way of thinking. A long time ago, the NDP's predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, included individuals such as Thérèse Casgrain. More recently, former MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau was a staunch defender of the supply management sector, specifically dairy production.

The agricultural sector is a very important sector, but the Canadian government has sold it out repeatedly during international trade agreement negotiations. It happened with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and Europe, or CETA, and again with the recent Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

The markets in other countries, and especially the dairy market in the United States, are very competitive. The United States would like to see us adopt their dairy market. As a result of all of the concessions that the Canadian government made while negotiating free trade agreements, our industry has been getting more similar to the U.S. market.

Dairy farmers in the U.S. are currently in crisis, and some of them are taking their own lives because their farms are no longer profitable. This is not because they cannot produce enough, but because they produce too much. The economic model would have them produce more and more and try to develop export markets, but that model does not work.

Some Canadian dairy farmers own businesses that are smaller than those in the United States. They have a stable, decent income. They produce all of the dairy products that Canadians need. This system works very well.

The supply management industry is under attack for essentially ideological reasons. The supply management system is important, and we must do more.

Canadian governments of all stripes have consistently failed to properly protect the supply management system.

What can we do?

The government does not give Parliament much space or much of a role in these negotiation processes. We saw this with CUSMA, and we are now seeing it again with the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada. Parliament often does not get to see the text of these free trade agreements before they are signed. By then, there is very little time left to debate the bill before the components of the agreement are implemented.

When could Parliament have an influence on the negotiating process? It has not been for lack of trying in the past. In five years, I have seen several members ask questions about this issue while negotiations were under way. Once the agreement is signed and provided to Parliament, parliamentarians and Canadians, it is too late, and that is when we see that concessions have been made in the supply-managed sectors.

I think that Bill C-216 is important for defending not only supply management, but also the concept, which I strongly support, that Parliament needs to be more involved in the negotiation process.

I heard my Conservative colleague say that he did not like this bill because if the issue of supply management were put on the table, our free trade partners might target these sectors more. However, I do not think that we can defend supply management by ignoring it. That does not seem to me to be an effective strategy, and it does not inspire much confidence.

If Parliament wants to focus on the supply-managed sectors and do everything it can to defend supply management, given that we have a government that regularly makes promises about supply management and then does not keep them, this bill will allow us to truly say that Parliament supports supply management.

I will once again thank my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel for introducing this bill. As I said at the beginning, I am very pleased and proud to support Bill C-216.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I must inform him that he has approximately six minutes remaining before the end of the time provided for private members' business. He will have his remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is already a challenge for me to not go over my allotted time. I will try to give my speech in six minutes, knowing that I will have the remaining four minutes another day.

I am going to address everyone. This is the moment of truth. This is the time for action. We are sick of the old promises and old policies. Today, a promise was made to defend supply management. However, the promise was made by members of the political party that made the first concessions, so I have a hard time believing them.

I want my speech to unite people. We need to listen to the farmers who are on the ground, much like we should be listening to members when they are giving speeches. The president of the Union des producteurs agricoles made a public statement this morning, calling on all parties in the House to adopt this bill, because farmers are tired of promises.

On November 18, the chair of the Producteurs de lait du Québec issued a press release. It was not a partisan message urging people to vote for the Bloc Québécois. It simply encouraged members to vote in favour of this fundamental and necessary bill. We do not want to hear that laws can be amended. Come on. We just voted on a bill on training for judges. No one pointed out that a future government could repeal that act. We passed it, and we are moving forward.

Passing legislation would give us uniquely effective ways of protecting the industry. We want concrete action. I may seem angry, but that anger is justified because it is on behalf of farmers and processors. These people are waiting.

As mentioned earlier, we are not just talking about breaches in supply management. In the most recent agreement, the government went so far as to limit our exports to other countries, countries that are not even part of the agreement. That makes no sense whatsoever. What is the next step? This request to limit exports of milk proteins was made because of class 7. The Americans wanted to limit our exports to other countries because of the existence of class 7.

The Government of Canada caved on both fronts. Not only did we lose class 7, but we now have export limits imposed on us. Furthermore, it is unbelievable that the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, came into effect on July 1 rather than August 1 like it was supposed to, according to all of the commitments that had been made. It is shameful that we have gotten to this point.

Pierre Falardeau said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you 'sir'.” In the latest negotiations, the Canadian government chose to lie down. That is a problem. It is time to stand up. We will help the government with this bill. The solution is right here. This is the moment of truth. When the time comes to vote on Bill C-216, we will know who truly stands up for agriculture. This is what the sector wants. People need it. A total of 18% of the dairy market is being given up. For other sectors, it is between 7% and 10%. That is huge. Nobody is keeping promises.

This evening, the Liberals are telling us that we must vote for them, that they are not interested in this legislation, that they will deal with the supply management issue and that they will defend it. How can anyone stand for that yet again? That means nothing to farmers, which is why they are ending their silence today, speaking out about a bill and calling on all parties here to set partisanship aside and work together. Supply management is the lifeblood of our regions. It keeps our rural communities alive.

When we talk about supply management, we often think of farmers. Some might say they have an advantage, because there are quotas. No food is wasted most of the time. Of course, there was a crisis this year under exceptional circumstances. Still, the supply management system has proven its effectiveness, since farmers were able to adjust very quickly. Unlike most other sectors of the economy, they did not ask the government for any assistance. All they want is the compensation that they were promised but that has not been delivered.

How can we trust a government that tells us not to worry, that it will compensate us, but that has yet to pay out one red cent two years on? The government has delivered only one cheque out of eight in the dairy sector. It has given nothing to egg farmers, nothing to poultry farmers, and nothing to processors. The amounts were determined over a year ago, but nothing is happening. By providing legislative protection for supply management, we are forcing future governments to show some backbone. That is the solution.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, the time has expired. I normally indicate how much time is left.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to deliver a speech and follow a written text when so many people are speaking very loudly all around. I have been wanting to say that for a long time. This is a sensitive topic, and that made it even more difficult.

I think this is an important cause, and the fact that people are chatting while we are having this debate speaks to what the other parties really think. I wonder about the lack of respect this shows not just to MPs, but also to the farmers. I just wanted to draw that to the attention of my esteemed colleagues.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I understand what my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, is saying. He is absolutely right. When an hon. member has the floor, he is the only one allowed to speak. I would appreciate it if the other members recognized this reality in the House.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé will have four minutes to conclude his speech when the House resumes debate on this topic.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 24, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, 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.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has moved six motions in the House since 2005. Those six motions were not adopted on division; they were adopted unanimously. That means that everyone was in favour of those motions, which had to do with protecting supply management. However, there have still been breaches in the system.

All of the agreements that have been signed recently have created breaches: the agreement with Europe, the Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and CUSMA. Every time, the government tells farmers that this is the last time and that this will not happen again, but then the next agreement creates more breaches.

Every time, the government promises farmers that it will properly compensate them for their losses. However, every time, farmers either do not receive any compensation, they are late in being compensated or they receive only partial compensation, and all that after they have already spent several years fighting for it. That is unacceptable and it has to stop.

Today, every single party here is solemnly swearing to protect supply management. One simple way to prove that is to vote in favour of Bill C-216. There are members and political parties in the House that promise to defend supply management, but then they go and say things like, “This does not mean we have to support a bill that would close the door on any future opportunity for growth.” In other words, they are promising to protect supply management, but they are still keeping it handy as a wild card they might choose to play in future negotiations. That is not cutting it any more. People are sick of these promises.

Farmers are asking us to look beyond the political party that introduced the bill and focus on whether it is good for people. I, too, am asking for a non-partisan approach. That is what folks in the agricultural sector want us to do.

Last week, we toured the regions of Quebec and met with farmers from each region. They spoke to us passionately, from the heart, and told us that they needed this kind of legislation. At the same time, we released a video featuring representatives of all the federations under supply management: Mr. Gobeil of the Producteurs de lait du Québec; Mr. Loyer and Mr. Bilkes of the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers; Mr. Chalifoux of the Conseil des Industriels laitiers du Québec; Mr. Fontaine of the Chicken Farmers of Canada; Mr. Leblanc of the Éleveurs de volailles du Québec; Mr. Bouchard of the Fédération des producteurs d'œufs du Québec; Mr. Ference of the Turkey Farmers of Canada; Mr. Pelissero of the Egg Farmers of Canada; and Ms. Cloutier of the Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec. It was fairly unanimous.

Also last week, Mr. Groleau of the UPA wrote a letter to every party leader in the House of Commons, pleading with them to pass Bill C-216, which is fundamental and very necessary.

I am making this humble request on behalf of regular folks who are not here to speak for themselves. I am speaking for them. They are at the end of their rope. They are sick of promises, of having to fight, of having to push, of struggling to keep their head above water for years just to get a small cheque that will not cover all the losses they have suffered.

Farmers are proud, strong and reliable. They want to do decent, honourable work feeding people. They have no use for compensation cheques. What they really want is to keep working under the wonderful system that they set up and that is working very well.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act on supply management. I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. minister is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, 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.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, this bill proposes to amend section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, which sets out the powers, functions and duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. More specifically, the bill proposes the addition of a provision that would prevent the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making any commitment in an international treaty that would have the effect of:

(a) increasing the tariff rate quota, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Customs Tariff, applicable to dairy products, poultry or eggs; or

(b) reducing the tariff applicable to those goods when they are imported in excess of the applicable tariff rate quota.

For those watching at home, basically what that means is that we would not grant any further market access to dairy products, poultry or eggs in future trade negotiations.

I appreciate the opportunity the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel has provided me to reaffirm the government's support for supply management. Supply management is the pillar of Canada's rural and economic prosperity that our dairy, poultry and egg producers rely on. We have heard them clearly, and we want to keep our supply management strong and sustainable well into the future.

Faced with the difficult economic situation created by price instability and fluctuation in their incomes nearly 50 years ago, a Liberal government established with farmers this system that now sustains farming families and rural communities across the country. Canada's supply management system has since ensured fair prices for farmers, stability for processors and high-quality products for consumers at reasonable prices. The system contributes significantly to rural prosperity.

The dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated almost $12 billion in farm-gate sales in 2019 and accounted for over 75,000 well-paying jobs in production and processing activities. For these reasons, our government continues to vigorously support Canada's supply management system. Looking forward, our government has made it abundantly clear that Canada will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements.

In fact, we demonstrated this commitment recently when the government announced the conclusion of the negotiations on the trade continuity agreement with the United Kingdom. This agreement would ensure continuity of access to Canada's third-largest export market, but would provide no new access for imported dairy, poultry or egg products.

Moreover, we believe that protection for supply management is strengthened through enhanced transparency in the conduct of trade negotiations. We welcome the involvement of the public, stakeholders and parliamentarians in Canada's trade agenda provided by the updated policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament. The updated policy enhances reporting obligations to Parliament for new trade agreements and provides additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new trade agreements.

With respect to the impact of recent agreements, in the Speech from the Throne this government renewed its commitment to fully and fairly compensate producers and processors of supply-managed commodities, including dairy, poultry and egg farmers. We are delivering on this as well.

Over the past two years, our government has invested $2 billion in support of Canadian dairy producers. Of this, $1.75 billion has been made available to compensate supply-managed dairy farmers across Canada and $250 million to help producers prepare for market challenges through the dairy farm investment program, including modernization of their installations and improvement of animal welfare. Because dairy producers depend on strong dairy processors to market their milk, we also invested $100 million to help processors invest in new technology and stay on the cutting edge and increase their capacity. We have also allocated $691 million for 10-year programs for Canada's 4,800 chicken, egg, broiler-hatching egg, and turkey farmers. Responding to sector demands, these programs will drive innovation and growth for farmers.

With the ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, we will take the same approach. We are committed to working in partnership with supply-managed stakeholders to address the impacts of the new NAFTA on their industry.

During the negotiations of CUSMA, Canada faced strong American calls to completely dismantle the supply management system. They applied intense pressure, but we succeeded in preserving the system. I congratulate our negotiators and ministers for succeeding in preserving the system with its three pillars, namely, production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls, and in concluding the agreement.

This success is further evidenced by our government's commitment to preserving the integrity of the supply management system so it can continue serving future generations of hard-working Canadian farmers.

The government knows the value of supply management. We were the party that put in place supply management in Canada 50 years ago, and we are defending it from those who want to see it dismantled. Supply management supports Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors. We will keep delivering for agriculture, while also continuing to pursue our ambitious, inclusive trade agenda.

Prior to the pandemic, trade accounted for nearly two-thirds of Canada's economy and supported more than 3.4 million jobs. Trade can help our economy rebound from the pandemic. Indeed, Canada is the only G7 country with a free trade agreement with every other G7 country. Every day Canadian companies benefit from the trade and investment opportunities created by 14 trade agreements that cover 51 countries. As a result of these agreements, Canadian businesses and exporters have access to 1.5 billion customers worldwide. In particular, I am excited by the work we are doing on egg quotas for Yukon and other provisions to ensure our egg export ability.

These comprehensive and inclusive deals protect our interests while levelling the playing field internationally, helping Canadian businesses in all provinces and territories compete and succeed in global markets. For example, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement provides continued market access security for $58.9 billion in annual exports from Quebec to the United States. In addition, it provides stability for workers who rely on well-paying export-dependent jobs, including in the aerospace, heavy trucking, agricultural and apparel industries.

Similarly, by eliminating tariffs on nearly all of Quebec's exports to the European Union and key markets in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan and Vietnam, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP, have created new opportunities for key sectors, including metals and minerals, which is so important for my riding; agriculture and agri-food; and forestry.

This is in addition to other trade agreements with Latin America, Europe and Asia-Pacific that give our farmers and businesses tariff-free access to 1.5 billion consumers in some of the world's fastest growing economies.

To conclude, the government continues to ensure that our businesses and import supply chains remain resilient by diversifying who trades, where people trade and how they trade while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade have repeatedly assured Canadians that the federal government will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements.

Let me finish by reiterating the government's unequivocal commitment to maintain supply management as a pillar of strong and sustainable rural prosperity into the future.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-216.

We are debating this legislation because the Liberal government has not treated supply-managed sectors fairly. They have not supported farmers or producers, and not followed through on their commitments. However, this legislation does not address the issues of farmers and producers.

Conservatives have been strong and vocal supporters of our supply-managed sectors and will continue to be. In fact, Conservatives have a policy declaration that says the following:

...it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative Government will support supply management and its goal to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Our leader, our party, and our policy have been clear on this. The Conservative Party is an ally, supporter and defender of supply management in Canada. I will talk about these important supply-managed sectors.

When I met with the Chicken Farmers of Canada, they were clear about their priorities. Through correspondence and an appearance at committee, we know that their priorities are new investment programs to support producers as they improve their operations, a market development fund to promote Canadian-raised chicken, a tariff rate quota allocation methodology designed to ensure minimal market distortions, the enforcement of Canadian production standards on imports and the resolution of import control loopholes undermining this sector. One of these is the fraudulent importation of mislabelled broiler meat being declared as spent fowl. There are reports of chicken meat imports being mislabelled in order to bypass import control measures.

When this situation first became apparent in 2012, Canada was importing the equivalent of 101% of the United States’ entire spent fowl production. According to the Chicken Farmers of Canada, these illegal imports have resulted in an estimated annual loss of 1,400 jobs in Canada, $105 million in contributions to the national economy, $35 million in tax revenue and the loss of at least $66 million in government revenues due to tariff evasion.

These illegal imports also raise important food safety concerns relating to traceability for recalls. This issue not only affects our economy and hard-working chicken farmers, but the lives of Canadians are on the line in the case of a food-borne illness.

Where is the action plan to deal with this?

When I spoke to the Egg Farmers of Canada, an industry association that represents over 1,000 family farms across the country that support over 18,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in GDP, they were clear that they wanted the government to stop claiming to support the industry and actually start defending it. I learned of the innovation occurring in this industry.

The egg industry is tired of being strung along by the government. They had to fight tooth and nail for clarity on promised compensation. They expressed their desire for investment in their industry, which is the backbone of rural communities, and for market development support when it comes to the Canadian egg brand.

Where is the desire or action plan to defend our egg industry?

When I spoke to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, they told me how hard it was for the industry to plan for the future due to the government’s lack of transparency, not the least in regard to the disbursement of promised compensation.

Where is the desire and action plan to defend the dairy industry?

These same concerns were raised by the Turkey Farmers of Canada. When I first spoke with them, they were going into year four without any payments of promised compensation by the government.

The Conservatives are the only party who can and will be able to ensure that our world-class producers of dairy, chicken, turkey, and eggs have a partner in government. The Bloc Québécois will never have to negotiate a trade agreement for Canada and be the partner in government that the supply management businesses in Quebec and across the country can rely on. The Conservative Party is the only party that can and will put an end to the failures of the Liberal government when it comes to trade agreements and compensation.

Conservatives will faithfully defend supply management. We were in the House of Commons pressing the government over and over again to fulfill its compensation promises to the supply-managed sectors. We have also raised in the House the meaningful actions that we can take now to protect and support farmers and producers, including in supply-managed sectors. These actions would include modernizing and improving agricultural risk management programs, asking the Competition Bureau to investigate the impacts of abusive trade practices in the grocery industry by the grocery giants, or providing flexibility and clarity on how compensation for supply-managed sectors is allocated.

Why have we seen no plans on these important topics?

I have spent a lot of time talking with businesses and industry representatives. They want consultation, understanding and transparency from the government. They want support from the government, which has been sorely lacking. After all, our agricultural sectors do not compete fairly with other countries that subsidize, both directly and indirectly, their own products.

Creating legislation such as we are debating today, which could target farmers and producers right from the onset as bargaining chips in future trade negotiations, is not a wise strategy. Canada could be out-negotiated and forced to agree to concessions and pay compensation. This would mean more workers losing jobs, and it would do nothing to drive investment, spearhead innovation or protect jobs.

In my home province of British Columbia, supply management is an important part of our economy. B.C. has over three million egg-laying hens across over 140 farms in the province. Chicken farmers in B.C. produce 87 million dozen eggs annually and account for 14,000 jobs, contributing $1.1 billion to Canada's GDP.

B.C. is also the third-largest dairy-producing province in Canada, with 500 farms.

It is the Conservatives who are putting forth private members' bills that are meaningful to the agriculture sector. Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-206, would exempt farmers from paying the carbon tax on gasoline, propane and natural gas. From heating barns to running farm equipment, farmers face steep energy costs, and these have skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to the increasing federal carbon tax. It is a practical measure to help alleviate the financial strain on the agriculture sector. Supporting our food security is more important than ever.

Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-208, would allow the transfer of a small business, family farm or fishing operation at the same tax rate when selling to a family member as when selling to a third party. I was happy to jointly second this bill in the first session of this Parliament. This was a poor tax policy change brought in by the government. This policy bothered me so much when it first came out. It was one of the factors that prompted me to run to become a member of Parliament.

Succession planning is a challenge at the best of times for small businesses, in particular farmers, and it is unfair that it is more financially advantageous to sell to a stranger than to one's own children, who have often grown up around the family business and contributed over time. I have many communications regarding this bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country on how positively it will affect their businesses and future planning.

Conservative Bill C-205 would amend the animal health act to address trespassing onto farms, into barns or other enclosed areas where the health of animals and safety of Canada’s food supply is potentially at risk. Entering a farm without lawful authority or excuse would become an offence under the act.

We will always support the hard-working farmers and producers in our supply managed sectors who ensure quality foods for Canadians. Dairy products, chicken, turkey and eggs are core staples on our dinner tables, and the pandemic showed us how important it is to protect our supply chains, supply management and food security.

The legislation we are debating today does nothing to address any of the concerns I have outlined. There are more meaningful, productive and long-lasting ways we can stand up for supply management without supporting Bill C-216.

Canada’s Conservatives will continue to support our supply managed sectors and ensure that dairy- and poultry-farming families and producers are consulted and engaged in any trade negotiations in the future.

We will continue to support all farmers and producers in meaningful ways.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today and to speak to this very important bill. I am rising today both as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade and the member for what is likely the most agricultural riding in the country.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been promoting buying local. We have been realizing the importance of producing and consuming local. That guarantees economic benefits, jobs and quality products, and it enables us to express our solidarity with and appreciation for our artisans.

Supply management is the basis of Quebec's agricultural model. It is a tool for preserving our food self-sufficiency and guaranteeing land use. It is a program that is based on a number of interdependent mechanisms. If one pillar is weakened or disappears, it disrupts the system, which becomes less effective overall. One of the pillars is border protection. That is likely the most important pillar of the supply management system because it helps protect our market from foreign products that are quite often subsidized and cost less to produce.

The idea behind supply management, which has many obvious benefits, is that agriculture cannot be treated as just one of many markets under the conventional rules of international trade.

After the Second World War, this was made clear in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, better known as GATT. This was the beginning of international trade liberalization. Agriculture was off the table in those discussions. It was explicitly excluded. They said that the sector would not be treated in the same way as other markets. Agriculture puts our food on the table. It is what feeds us at breakfast, lunch and supper.

Over the years, successive Canadian governments, no matter their political stripe, have passed the buck, promising to never touch supply management in any future free trade agreement negotiations. Each government said it would not touch it, unlike its predecessor. They said that one's word is one's bond, even though others had said the same thing before. These were in fact just empty words.

In the case of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and Europe and the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, we learned at the end of closed-door negotiations—which I would even describe as secretive—that supply management had not come out unscathed.

Our borders were compromised. Free trade agreements forced Ottawa to allow more imported products onto store shelves and substantially reduced penalties levied on countries that exceeded the limits. Canada lost the tools that enabled it to protect our markets from competition.

They said it would be a tiny little opening. They told us not to worry. They tried to reassure us by saying it would be a tiny little opening. Try telling producers and processors whose losses are mounting daily that the cause of their problems is just a tiny little opening. I am sure everyone will agree that all those so-called tiny little openings add up to a pretty massive hole.

Government after government has tried to make up for these openings with compensation. They told people not to worry because there would be fair compensation. We think there should be compensation and we have applied constant pressure to ensure that farmers who get shortchanged by Ottawa's diplomatic screw-ups get their cheques, of course. The problem is that it takes a very long time to get that compensation, which never really makes up for the holes in what was a proven system.

The Bloc Québécois has moved six motions since 2005 calling on the government to recognize and fully defend the supply management system. Every one of these motions passed, and they passed unanimously, at that. After seeing supply management gouged in each of the last three free trade agreements, we felt it was time to introduce a bill. Promises are not enough. We need legislation to fully protect our agricultural model. We must prevent this system from being undermined in any way in the future. Any minister negotiating a future trade agreement must be mandated to keep the supply management system as is. That is why we introduced this bill to prohibit any future breaches of supply management in any potential free trade negotiations. Members must support this bill. The Bloc Québécois and the Union des producteurs agricoles held a national press conference in November calling on everyone to do just that.

That was the message that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I delivered last week, when we did our tour, virtually of course, of all the regions of Quebec. That was also the message of the letter sent by the Union des producteurs agricoles to all the party leaders in the House. Farmers and processors are clear that we must pass this bill. When I vote on this bill I will be thinking about the people in my riding and throughout Quebec.

Since every party has already voted to protect supply management, we have to wonder why some are now refusing to support Bill C-216, which would do exactly the same thing. The parties are all in favour so they should all vote for the bill. The answer is very simple: Canada's two major parties, which like to pass the buck and rightly blame each other for betraying our agriculture sector, want, once they are in power, to keep the door open to negotiating and putting supply management on the table if an interesting opportunity presents itself in another sector.

Last week, a Conservative member from Quebec confirmed his party's so-called clear support for supply management. He said they were 100% behind it while stating that they should not be forced to support it if, in future, there would be opportunities for growth. That is revealing. I like it when things are clear. Yes, they stand up for supply management, but above all they are not obligated to defend supply management. The reason my colleague gave for rejecting our bill is the main reason why we should support it. Oral commitments are no longer enough.

As we heard during this debate, some people think that the bill is unconstitutional. That argument does not hold water. We, too, closely examined that aspect, and we believe that the bill passes the test. We could discuss that.

Furthermore, we are not talking here about the final passage of the bill but about passing the bill in principle. Once the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which I have the honour and pleasure of being a member, we will study it and hear from witnesses, experts and groups affected by it. We will also have the opportunity to amend it if there is something wrong with it. We could therefore hear from constitutional law experts and, if necessary, change the few lines that need to be changed to ensure this bill is more compliant with the Constitution. In short, there is absolutely nothing to warrant a negative vote in the House at this stage.

Let us pass the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-216. The dismantling of our agricultural model needs to stop. The future of our rural economy is at stake.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member has one minute and forty seconds left.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

In that case, I will finish up by just repeating my message. Let us pass Bill C-216. It is time to walk the talk. Farmers are sick of hearing governments promise that, unlike their predecessors, they will not touch supply management. They are sick of being told not to worry.

That door needs to be shut, because farmers have sacrificed enough and the supply management system cannot take any more damage. The boat is sinking, and this has to stop.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining today's debate on Bill C-216 as the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food. Of course, I am following our other critic, the critic for international trade, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who spoke on behalf of our party during this bill's first hour of debate.

I am here to offer my full support for Bill C-216 and for getting this bill voted on, so that it does proceed to the Standing Committee on International Trade. That committee, through its expertise, would then be able to take a look at this bill in finer detail, bring forward some substantive witnesses and make any possible changes that they see fit.

I do believe at this stage that the House of Commons, as the people's elected representatives, have to make that strong statement in principle through Bill C-216 that we support supply management. Too often those words defending supply management have been quite cheap, and this is an opportunity to put words into substantive action.

I am proud to belong to a party that has long stood in defence of supply management. Indeed, I can remember during my first term in the 42nd Parliament, we were often the ones who were leading the charge on defending supply management when it came to the successive trade deals that were signed by the Liberal majority government during the course of their first term.

When we talk about supply management we, of course, are talking generally about the egg sector: chickens, turkeys and dairy. I would like to talk a little bit about my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. We have a long and storied agricultural history. We have many family farms here on this part of Vancouver Island that are multi-generational. They were set up here to take advantage of our beautiful climate, the fact our winters are not terribly severe, an abundance of rainfall and some beautiful sunshine. We have an amazing agricultural climate here on Vancouver Island, and many farms have taken advantage of the unique climate conditions that we have.

I think of Lockwood Farms and the local egg farming operation of Farmer Ben's Eggs, which is quite a bit larger. I have visited several dairy operations throughout Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Time and time again, I have heard about the security that our supply management system is able to give these farms because it relies on three important pillars. It relies on price control and production control, which allow farms to basically plan for the future.

Farmers have a pretty good idea of what they are able to produce, but also the price that they will be able to fetch in return for those goods. These pillars are an important part of local food security and of how we build resiliency into our system. I think that is an important part of the conversation, especially in light of what we have gone through with COVID-19.

Looking at other sectors of our agricultural community that do not operate under supply management one can see wild price fluctuations. Farmers really are at the mercy of the markets, and they can have terribly tough times when those prices crash through the market floor. Even in goods that are supply managed here in Canada, we only need to look across the border at states such as Wisconsin for an example of this. One single state produces as much dairy as our entire country, but because of the crazy price fluctuations they have had, farmers have really been bouncing around. Sometimes they have benefited from high prices, other times they really had to scramble to try to find ways to save the farm. Indeed, many have gone under.

Our system gives farmers that kind of certainty and an ability to pay attention to their future. They can also make huge investments in their farms. They are much more likely to have agreeable financial institutions when they are coming forward with their plans for upgrading their farm because a financial institution can look at what their quota is, what the price is and make an extrapolation on what their earnings will be in future years. It is a bedrock of stability for so many small communities across Canada.

I have talked about the production control and price control elements of the system, which I have to emphasize are incredibly important for local food security. We do want to have prices that are manageable, both for the consumer and for the person who is producing it. I think that it is very important that farmers are paid an adequate amount for the work that they do.

The third pillar, which is also very important and especially pertinent to the debate that we are having here on Bill C-216, is import control. When we look at these three pillars, reference has repeatedly been made to a three-legged stool, and if we remove one of those pillars, the stool is going to fall over. Import control is incredibly important, because our system is carefully designed to look after the needs of the domestic market.

Whenever we have a trade deal come into effect that opens up more and more of our supply-managed market, we are bringing in those foreign products and, in some cases, those foreign products are not farmed to the same standards we Canadians are used to. For example, in the United States, bovine growth hormone is used in cows to increase the production of milk, which may not have an impact on the end product, but it does have an impact on the health, safety and well-being of the cows that are producing the dairy product in the first place. I know that Canadians have a very real interest in seeing that farm animals are treated well and humanely.

This is a huge issue, and trust me, I have been here now for almost six years, so I have heard all of the promises from the Liberals in government about how they brought in supply management and are the defenders of supply management, but if we look at the record, at successive trade deals that were set up, first with CPTPP, then with CETA and now with CUSMA, it is like a death by a thousand cuts. Each one of our sectors has seen increasing percentages of its domestic market share slivered off and given away to foreign competition. Products that had tariff rate quotas are now coming in tariff-free as a result.

Now when consumers go to market shelves, they see they might have more flexibility in buying European cheeses. However, when it comes to homegrown products, we hear repeatedly from Canadians, whenever we survey, that there is a very real interest in supporting local farmers. However, suddenly we are seeing products in there like American milk products, and we do not know how many miles the product has travelled or what kind of processes were put in place during its manufacture. This is a very real concern to people, and it is a very real concern to the family farms that operate in small rural communities right across Canada, just like those in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

I have mentioned the three trade deals, and Bill C-216 is proposing to amend an existing statute, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, by adding a new section under the existing section 10, which would basically make sure that whenever the minister is negotiating trade agreements our supply management system is exempted. The new section 2.1 would read:

In exercising and performing the powers, duties and functions set out in subsection (2), the Minister must not make any commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, by international trade treaty or agreement that would have the effect of

(a) increasing the tariff rate quota...or

(b) reducing the tariff applicable to those goods when they are imported in excess of the applicable tariff rate quota.

Essentially, the bill would spell it out in legislation and put action behind the flowery words that we have heard repeated in the House of Commons so many times.

To conclude, I personally will remain a strong supporter of supply management, not only for the farms in my area but also for the farms across Canada. As the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, I am pleased to give my full support to seeing Bill C-216 proceed to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking everyone who participated in this debate, which is wrapping up tonight and will conclude tomorrow with a second reading vote.

I would especially like to thank my leader for his support for Bill C-216 and for always putting agriculture at the top of his political agenda. I would also like to thank our agriculture critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, for the time and effort he put into supporting this bill. He and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot even travelled around all the regions. At the end of their tour, they came to one conclusion: support for Bill C-216 is crucial. That is what they heard from every leader in the agricultural sector.

I would like to extend a special thanks to Mr. Groleau, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, who sent a two-page-long letter to all party leaders in the House, asking them to support the bill. Here is part of that letter:

It is time to face the facts. Giving up guaranteed Canadian market share to foreign markets in exchange for potential, and sometimes unlikely, gains is not sustainable. Parliament must take a clear position that reflects your respective commitments in favour of supply management. It is very important to us that you support Bill C-216.

Will this letter, which was sent to all party leaders, be tossed in the trash? No, we must take this message into account and reflect carefully before voting, because it is important to all farm production in Quebec and Canada.

Essentially, the bill simply asks to respect the fact that Quebec and Canada have different agricultural models, based more on agricultural autonomy than on milk, egg and poultry exports. Under international trade rules, certain sensitive products can be protected. All countries have sectors whose products are kept off the table in international negotiations. Why should it be any different for Canada? Why could we not do the same? Supply management is a perfect case.

We are not asking the export sectors to stop exporting. We are simply asking that supply management no longer be used as a bargaining chip at every round of international negotiations to expand market opportunities for certain products. Today we are asking parliamentarians to do something non-partisan that is good for farmers in western Canada, Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes, and would allow thousands of families to earn a decent living and support thousands of others.

Let us not forget that every farm represents several families. Across Canada, more than 20,000 family farms are supply managed; we are talking about 20,000 businesses and quite a few families. Are we going to jeopardize so many lives and livelihoods? I do not think so.

I know that everyone in the House is appreciative and proud of the work that our farmers do across Canada. Voting for Bill C-216 does not mean voting against the other producers, who are not losing anything, but voting for the farmers and processors who chose a different farming model. It means voting to defend their values and their way of life, which represents rural living and respecting our agriculture.

Therefore, I humbly ask my dear colleagues to act without partisanship so that our regions will no longer have to fight their government to prosper, develop and, above all, to feed us.

Tomorrow, let us stand together to support our supply-managed producers. Lets us stand together to support responsible and sustainable production. Let us stand together to preserve our family farms. Let us stand together so that our farmers get a fair price at the farm gate. Let us stand together to encourage our next generation of farmers to invest with confidence in agriculture. Let us stand together to ensure our food sovereignty. Finally, let us stand together and say loud and clear that there will be no more breaches in supply management.

We ask a lot of our producers. Tomorrow, they deserve our support.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, 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.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-216, under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #68

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)