Bill C-282

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.

International Trade

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, for several months now, I have heard the Prime Minister repeatedly encourage the other place to pass Bill C-282.

However, I have not heard that from the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand the reason: The issue is a divisive one on the other side of the House. Almost 50% of Conservatives voted against supply management. Every member on our side of the House voted for it. We expect the other chamber to respect the decision of the House of Commons.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all the party leaders. Every one of them voted to protect supply management in trade agreements. Today, they have a duty to ask senators to respect the will of elected members. They must tell the senators, who are not elected, that they are not being paid to take a break, that they have a job to do no matter how superfluous it may be.

The Senate overlords are sitting again next week. Will all the leaders, starting with the Prime Minister, ask them to pass Bill C-282 before the holidays?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member opposite. It is shameful what Conservative members did in the House. It is important to remember that nearly 50% of Conservative members voted against Bill C-282. Now, the House has spoken. We support Bill C-282. We did our job.

We have made many calls to senators, and I encourage the member to continue making calls to the other chamber, because we expect Bill C-282 to be passed.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again yesterday, senators conspired to delay a crucial vote on Bill C-282, which would protect supply management. They have been working against our farmers for 18 months by putting off passing this one-clause bill.

Rather than respecting the will of elected members of all parties, unelected senators are filibustering. Ironically, the delay tactics that senators used yesterday consisted in stopping work by taking four hours of paid breaks.

Will the government condemn that sorry spectacle?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the party leaders. Each one of them voted to protect supply management in trade agreements by passing Bill C‑282.

Today, senators will either vote to respect our will or they will vote to reverse our collective decision, in a complete break from the basic principles of democracy. The party leaders must know that the farmers in their ridings are watching them.

Will all the party leaders, starting with the Prime Minister, ask the senators to reject the amendment and pass Bill C‑282 in its entirety by Christmas?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, important votes usually take place here in the House but, today, that work is being done in the Senate.

Senators are voting on an amendment that would kneecap Bill C‑282 and prevent it from protecting supply management. Unelected representatives will vote on whether or not they should respect the will of elected officials from all parties to protect our farmers in trade agreements.

Did the Prime Minister contact each of his Senate appointments to tell them to vote on the right side, the side of democracy?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy. I almost feel like I am among family. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is here. My friend from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is here, also. It is like being back in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. I feel good and confident.

As far as the motion of non-confidence in the government is concerned, I think that the Bloc Québécois's course of action is fairly clear and understandable: We say what we do and we do what we say.

On day one, going back to September 25, the leader of the Bloc Québécois gave the government an ultimatum. Our goal was to protect seniors and our farmers. We gave the government a chance to come to terms with us and ensure that its minority government would hold. Unfortunately, when it came to Bill C‑319 on increasing pensions and Bill C‑282 on supply management, the government refused to listen. Instead, it proposed measures that seem to have come back to bite it today.

On the subject of the $250 that excluded seniors in particular, people would not believe how much feedback I have gotten on that and how much it increased cynicism. Never in my time in the House, since 2019, have I heard so much about an issue. The same thing goes for the GST. I have heard from many business owners who said the measure was crazy and that they do not have the resources to change their entire system. This is what the government wanted to do.

It was clear from that moment on that if the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity, we would bring down the government. It should come as no surprise to the House that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the motion before us. Why? It is because I truly believe that the government cannot be trusted.

That being said, I am being a bit mischievous. The question of whether we can trust the government is interesting, but there is another one too, namely whether we can trust the leader of the official opposition.

I thought why not give the leader of the official opposition a dose of the same medicine he gave the leader of the NDP. In a past life, I taught at a university. I quite liked discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is kind of what we are seeing in the motion. What the Conservative Party is doing is taking the NDP leader's statements to show that if he wants to be consistent with his statements then he should bring down the government. The Conservatives are absolutely right about that. If the NDP wants to be consistent with the statements it makes, it should bring down the government.

Another rather interesting issue is whether we can have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition if we analyze his discourse and statements. That is what we are going to try to do. I am going to use a lot of quotes. The Conservatives should be happy about that since the content comes entirely from their leader.

The first reason that was widely put forward by the leader of the official opposition for bringing down the government is the infamous issue of wokeism. I will give some examples. My colleagues will see where I am going with this.

Last week, on November 26, during the emergency debate on U.S. tariffs, the member for Carleton, leader of the official opposition, said the following:

The woke political agenda is dividing us and distracting us from our work. Young men and women want nothing to do with the woke agenda. They want to fight for our country. They want to be proud of the Canadian flag.

We are going to get rid of the woke political agenda....

We will have a warrior culture, not a woke culture.

In a moment, I am going to try and define what he means by a warrior culture rather than a woke culture.

I would like to read another quote by the Leader of the Opposition from the day before, November 25. He said, “Mr. Speaker, the lawless hate riot that we saw on the streets of Montreal is what happens after nine years of a woke Prime Minister pushing radical, woke identity politics, dividing people by race, gender, vaccine status, religion and more.” We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a penchant for conspiracy theories. That is another quote that shows the danger facing Canadian society, the woke danger.

I have another quote from last year. He said, “We will also bring back freedom. I know that freedom is a foundational principle of our country. The federal government wants to censor the Internet. The CRTC, a woke agency, wants to impose its values on Quebeckers.” In the same quote, the leader of the official opposition talks about the “Minister of Canadian Heritage, and...other woke bureaucrats here in Ottawa, who will control what Quebeckers can see and say on the Internet.”

I am going to provide a summary of the woke threat. When the leader of the official opposition talks about radical identity politics, when he talks about politics that divide people by race and religion and when he talks about politics that seek to impose values on Quebeckers, the following question comes to mind: Who is doing that in Quebec? Who is acting woke in Quebec? The answer is fairly simple. Who represents that position? Guess what? Usually, it is the people who are against Bill 21, the state secularism law. Bill 21 governs religion in the public sphere. In Quebec, when we talk about someone who is woke, we are talking about people who are against Bill 21 and who have a view of minorities that goes against the Quebec national minority. We have a definition of what wokeism is in Quebec.

Let us now try to look at what the leader of the official opposition is telling us about Bill 21. On numerous occasions, he said, and I quote, “I'm against Bill 21.” He has also said, “If I were a Quebec politician, I would vote against it in the legislature. If anyone proposed it federally, and I do not see that happening, I would vote against it. I believe in religious freedom.”

That is the leader of the official opposition's interpretation. This woke culture is one of his main reasons for wanting to bring down the government. I would like to point out that, here in Ottawa, the Leader of the Opposition is against woke culture, but when he gets to Quebec, he himself is actually woke. The leader of the official opposition, from Quebec's perspective, is woke. That somewhat conflicting piece of information is pretty important. If Quebeckers want to make up their minds about the Conservative Party's policy directions, I would suggest that is a bit more complex than the slogans we hear day after day in the House. At the very least, perhaps the leader of the official opposition could explain what makes those who are woke in Canada different from those who are woke in Quebec. Is this the solitude of the two wokes? Possibly, but it is clear that the leader of the official opposition's intentions are not in line with Quebec's aspirations.

Another crucial topic for the leader of the official opposition is inflation and its repercussions. The leader of the official opposition has often talked to us about the many ways inflation is negatively impacting Canadian society, which is broken. The leader of the official opposition often tells us that Canada is broken and the budget needs to be fixed. Canada is broken, and his solution is to fix the budget. By way of illustration, I would refer members to a misleading ad that the leader of the official opposition aired some time ago. It featured a Quebec family talking about how they could not pay their mortgage. Later, it emerged that this was not the case. It was a generic image, and the family was very angry with the Conservative Party.

This family said that they absolutely were paying their mortgage but were being portrayed in the media like a family of idiots, all because the Conservative party leader had decided to make them characters in his fantasy world. People will also remember the infamous video about the leader of the official opposition's idealized vision of Canada the day he appeared in a white cowboy hat. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean thought he was the singer from the Village People. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is always ready to dance. His jaw soon dropped when he realized it was actually the leader of the official opposition, especially after all the over-the-top statements that came next.

What struck me the most was how the leader of the official opposition used the issue of medical assistance in dying. The leader of the official opposition linked medical assistance in dying to inflation, the recession, and the financial struggles that some people are facing. On June 7, 2023, the Leader of the Opposition said, “Those going to The Mississauga Food Bank and seeking help with medical assistance in dying, not because they are sick but because they are hungry, have never had it so good”. According to the leader of the official opposition, some people in Mississauga were going to food banks and were so hungry that they were requesting medical assistance in dying.

On May 15, 2023, he said, “One in five is skipping meals because they cannot afford the inflationary carbon tax on food.” Now there is another link. I will come back to that later, because the carbon tax is another pet project of the Leader of the Opposition. He went on to say, “1.5 million are eating at food banks, and some are asking for help with medical assistance in dying because they cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.” Personally, I have yet to meet anyone who has requested medical assistance in dying because they were hungry. Maybe one day, the Leader of the Opposition will introduce us to those people. I asked him a question earlier after his speech, and he explained that it was meant to be an ode, that it was his version of poetry. I am very familiar with Miron, and I understand many poets, but I still do not understand the poetry of the leader of the official opposition.

Lastly, we have scurvy. After medical assistance in dying came the resurgence in scurvy. In February 2024, the leader of the official opposition said, “There is the re-emergence of illnesses that were long ago banished, like scurvy, because people have become malnourished under the Prime Minister's impoverishing policies.” If members are following what I am saying, it seems we have people who are asking for medical assistance in dying because there is nothing left to eat. Others are not asking for medical assistance in dying, but they have scurvy because they do not have anything to eat. If Canada is not broken, then one has to wonder what is happening. We are truly at a crossroads.

It does not stop there. I have often criticized the leader of the official opposition by saying that he is not presenting any solutions, but he is. I want to tell the House about the leader of the official opposition's solutions to inflation. I found some quotes. I looked long and hard and I managed to find some quotes showing that the leader of the official opposition does have some solutions. Here is one of his first solutions to inflation: Canadians can embrace cryptocurrency to “opt out of inflation”.

It is a pretty interesting sleight of hand. The Leader of the Opposition is always telling us to take control of money away from bankers and politicians and give it to the people. Here is another quote from the Leader of the Opposition: “We're going to give people the freedom, the FREE-DOM to choose their own currency without the Bank of Canada stepping in to print money and devalue the currency.” Finally, the Leader of the Opposition tells us that to stop inflation, to stop people from asking for medical assistance in dying and to stop people from getting scurvy, the solution is Bitcoin. It is pretty ingenious. Perhaps Bitcoin is the solution for domestic policy, but the other solution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is to get out of Davos.

Apparently Canada is at a disadvantage because of a global conspiracy that is partly responsible for inflation. In a fundraising email, the leader of the official opposition said, “It's far past time we rejected the globalist Davos elites and bring home the common sense of the common people.” He is not a globalist.

Here is another quote from the leader of the official opposition. During a speech he gave in British Columbia in July 2023, he said, “There will be no mandatory digital ID in this country, and I will ban all of my ministers and top government officials from any involvement in the World Economic Forum”.

That is one way to square a circle. Conspiracy theories say there will be digital ID. The people at the World Economic Forum are controlling whole governments like puppets. The leader of the official opposition has a solution: Bitcoin. He will also terminate the government's involvement in the World Economic Forum. There are solutions.

The famous carbon tax is another key element to understanding what is driving the leader of the official opposition to defeat the government. Every member ends their intervention by saying that we need a carbon tax election. I will note that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They may have a theme specific to Quebec, but clearly the leader of the official opposition is not addressing Quebeckers when he talks about that.

I will provide an example that is just fantastic. On September 25, the leader of the official opposition said, “Let us talk about education. The carbon tax will cost Saskatchewan schools $204 million. That is the equivalent of approximately 2,000 teachers losing their job, all to pay tax to heat schools in cold Saskatchewan winters.”

The leader of the official opposition often does that. He talked to us about a nurse who lost her job because of the cost to heat the hospital. He also talked about teachers losing their job because of the cost to heat the schools. The worst example was on September 24. The leader of the official opposition had a stroke of genius when he talked about “nuclear winter”. That is incredibly dangerous. The leader of the official opposition said, “What he actually wants to do is quadruple the carbon tax, which will grind our economy to a halt. It will be a nuclear winter for our economy.” There will be no more heating. If we listen to the Liberals, there might be no more teeth because there will be no more dental insurance. It is a mess. Canada is truly broken.

When the leader of the official opposition gave his speech today, I told myself that he had the solution. The leader of the official opposition has the solution, because he has told us before about the famous electrician who captures lightning and sends it through a copper wire to light up the rooms we are in. I think that this electrician could also heat schools and hospitals. I am sure he could do that. That is the answer. All we have to do is find more of these electricians who capture lightning. They will be able to heat our schools and hospitals. It will be great. That is once again a great solution from the leader of the official opposition.

Of course, I will skip over those things that pertain specifically to oil. I will, perhaps, digress briefly to talk about law and order, something that the opposition leader talks a lot about. However, there is one thing that he seems to gloss over. During the trucker protests, the opposition leader said, “I was at an overpass as the truckers went by, and what I saw were cheerful, patriotic and optimistic Canadians who want their freedom back and want their livelihoods back.” I think that goes well with his theme of law and order.

I will end my speech by saying that, after two years of this Leader of the Opposition, he is not worth the cost or the pollution. The Bloc Québécois, a party of staunch sovereignists, will eliminate funding for oil companies, increase pensions for people over the age of 65, stop hate speech and defend supply management. When is the election?

International Trade

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this may come as a surprise: The Senate is taking its sweet time with Bill C‑282, the bill to protect supply management. The wise ones in the upper chamber have had this single-clause bill for 18 months now. It has taken them 18 months to look at one clause. Meeting after meeting, they keep postponing the vote on a crucial amendment. They are trying to put this off until after the holidays.

Will all the party leaders tell the senators to stop stalling and vote to pass Bill C‑282 before Christmas?

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 43

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can see that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have a grasp of Quebec's reality. No one back home talks to me about the carbon tax. People talk to me about meaningful measures, like increasing old age security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74. Given the current economic uncertainty and the likely return of inflation, it is more important than ever to restore the purchasing power of these seniors. In fact, the Conservatives, and even some Liberals, voted for it, including the member for Honoré-Mercier. At some point or another, all of the parties have supported this bill.

Another way to help our economy is to protect our farms. I am thinking of Bill C‑282, which deals with protecting supply management. We hear about it in Quebec. With the economic risk and uncertainty expected over the next period, plus the growing risk of inflation, protecting Quebec's farms, protecting our farm model, protecting supply management and writing down in an act that we are going to protect our farms here is important.

When I am in Quebec, I hear more about those two things than I hear about the carbon tax.

U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague opposite talk about Bill C-280, but I wonder if he could also talk about Bill C-282, which, I would remind members, seeks to protect supply management.

We are currently negotiating with the government, and there are some things we absolutely must not compromise on, including the well-being of Quebec farmers. I would like my esteemed colleague to tell me whether his government and his Prime Minister will force the senators' hand and respect the will of the elected members of the House.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the fear is that if CUSMA is renegotiated, new cracks will appear in supply management. Ideally, Bill C-282 will be passed quickly. Unfortunately, we are paralyzed here. The Liberal government seems to be a doormat, I have to say, for two senators who have decided to act like kings. It is rather disappointing. There is a bill on the table, our bill, and the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of it. Even some Conservatives voted in favour of it. I do not see why we would not implement it and protect all of our farmers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the respect shown by my Conservative colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of affection.

I was somewhat blown away by the Conservative leader's intervention. This evening, we are tasked with coming up with solutions and trying to comfort and reassure business people and workers. The Conservative leader did not do that at all. Later I will turn my attention to the state of the government, but what we heard this evening are the same meaningless slogans. The new slogan of the day is “Canada first”. That is going to be the new mantra of the Conservative leader, who thinks that complex problems can be resolved with incantations. It is rather shocking.

That makes me think of a video I saw this summer. I was watching a video with my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who is mischievous and playful. There was a cowboy dressed all in white, and my colleague wondered if it was the cowboy from the Village People. Unfortunately, it was not him. It was the leader of the official opposition. He was not singing Y.M.C.A., though. He was describing his Canadian dream. In his Canadian dream, there are the Rockies, which are the mountains of Utah. We cannot make this stuff up. There is a sky, which is in Venezuela. Then there is a father driving a car in North Dakota. That is the official opposition leader's Canadian dream. We see a herd of cattle in California. To top it all off, we then see what are supposed to be Canadian fighter jets, but which are actually Russian jets.

It is just like the speech we heard from the leader of the official opposition just now. He was talking about real plans and real measures, but he did not come here to talk about American tariffs. Rather, he came to talk about his usual bugbears, namely the tax on carbon and fossil fuels, which is probably the most important thing to him after, say, sliced bread. On top of that, he also said that he would go back on liquefied natural gas development, end the government's woke agenda and return to a warrior culture. We are supposed to be talking about tariffs, and the leader of the official opposition is telling us that he is going to return to a warrior culture. I have never been more ashamed to be a Canadian parliamentarian than when I heard that and saw his MPs yelling, as though they were thrilled and excited and on the edge of their seats. My leader recently said the only sensible thing one could say in this Parliament: We need to leave and build our own country, right now. This is completely discouraging.

That being said, let us move on to something other than these empty slogans. Today, I heard the Prime Minister talk about team Canada. The Liberals are talking about team Canada, while the Conservatives' new pitch is “Canada first”. That does not speak to me because, if I look at history, Quebec has often been used as a bargaining chip in trade agreements. The Canadian economy is based on two pillars: the energy sector, with the fossil fuel industries, and the automotive sector. Every time there have been tough negotiations with the United States, Canada has prioritized these two sectors.

Today, I am going to ask my fellow members from Quebec, whether they are members of the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, to put everything in place and to make a reasonable effort to advance Quebec's interests. That is what I want for them. I am saying that because, when I look at the forestry industry, I have to say that it is always treated worse than any of Canada's other economic sectors. What is more, we are dealing with the threat of American tariffs, tariffs that the forestry industry is already grappling with, by the way. Even though Quebec has changed the way it calculates cubic metres of wood to bring it into line with the United States' demands, there are still tariffs. The forestry industry is experiencing a perfect storm.

Right now, $2 billion in tariffs is being held captive in U.S. accounts, where the forest industry cannot get at it. This is money we could be using to upgrade the forestry sector's facilities.

While I am on the topic of the forestry industry, I want to circle back to what the Leader of the Opposition said when he answered a question earlier. He said that, supposedly, we are not rising to support the forestry industry. Of course, he was referring to the conflict over the caribou order. I want to clarify a few things. The Minister of Environment paused his order at the request of the Bloc Québécois, which asked him to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, something he is apparently doing now. We said that it was possible to balance the need to protect caribou with the needs of the forestry industry.

I find it rather strange that the leader of the official opposition mentioned the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord when he was talking about the forestry industry. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord came with us to visit a sawmill in Lac-Saint-Jean this summer. He came out and said that the forestry sector needed more support and that everyone was hoping there would be no order.

When we spoke with people in the industry, they told us that the tariffs were one of their biggest problems. From what they told us, they would really like the federal government to implement a liquidity program to support the forestry industry. That way, sawmills that are struggling could ask the government to advance them the money that they have paid in tariffs. They could then reimburse it when they got it back. This would enable them to invest in their equipment. Unfortunately, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was not prepared to do that with us. He thought it was complicated and difficult. I find it rather odd that now I am being accused of having abandoned the forestry industry, when we are trying to come up with solutions.

As I was saying, the forest industry is at a crossroads, and not just because of tariffs. It has reached a crossroads because of a serious lack of financial support from the federal government, because the pulp and paper industry is in transition, because of the infamous caribou issue, and because of the forest fires.

What does the forestry industry need in order to overcome the tariff crisis? For one thing, there is the liquidity program I was talking about. The reason we need a liquidity program is that, if we want to fight tariffs, we need to make ourselves less dependent on the U.S. economy. We need to do more processing. Tariffs apply only on commodity products like two-by-fours, but there are no tariffs on processed goods. To expand our processing capabilities, we need financial support to help the forestry sector upgrade. Right now, that is impossible because tariffs are eating up too much of the forest sector's profits.

Ottawa provides basically no financial support for the forestry industry. The Bloc Québécois commissioned a study that shows that the government provides a scant $317 million a year to support the forestry industry across Canada. What is more, 75% of that $317 million for all of Canada is in the form of loans. This is not commensurate with what is given to the oil and gas sector.

For example, in Quebec, the federal government provides a mere $71 million in financial support. If we consider the fact that 75% of that amount is in the form of loans, that means that only $17 million is in the form of direct subsidies. The government is giving $17 million to one of Quebec's most important industries. It is easy to see that the federal government is providing minimal support. My region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean alone generates more in economic spinoffs for the federal government than the federal government provides in total support to Quebec.

We are going to have to support the forestry sector more if we want to fight effectively against the American tariffs that are coming. We need an investment strategy. Above all, we are going to need the federal government to understand that we can no longer be prisoners to commodity products, that we can no longer be prisoners to U.S. markets, and that we need to process products here.

When we, the members of the 2019 cohort, arrived here, we lived through the CUSMA negotiations on aluminum. I would remind members that the federal government had forgotten to protect aluminum and that aluminum was coming in through China. Once again, we were the ones who fought this battle, with the support of major unions and aluminum plants, to reach an agreement with the government that closed this loophole for aluminum entering through Mexico.

I still remember that, and I am talking about it because I see my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord sitting there. He started that battle with us, but unfortunately had to withdraw because his party did not agree with what we were asking for. His party did not agree that we should push for aluminum to be protected under CUSMA. I just want to say that the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, to the effect that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I are leaving our region out in the cold, left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I was talking about the aluminum industry. The federal government is offering support, but only for primary aluminum. Again, if we do not want to be prisoners to U.S. tariffs, then we need to do more processing. I do not know if my colleagues remember, but during the first round of tariffs on aluminum in 2018, $120 million was paid in retaliatory tariffs that should have gone to the aluminum sector. That $120 million was never redistributed, according to a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

We made a proposal that would benefit the entire sector. Why not take that $120 million and put it in a fund for the aluminum processing sector? Why not make it a recurring fund that would allow us to process more of our grey metal here at home? Then we could reduce our dependency on the United States and create a lot more added value at home. That is the case for aluminum. There needs to be more processing. That is also the case for the forestry industry. We should be doing more processing.

Where we could take action, where everyone could take action if we want to protect ourselves from American tariffs, is on the much-talked-about supply management bill, Bill C‑282. It is currently in the Senate, so it simply needs to be sent back to the House. Perhaps my Conservative colleagues could put an end to their filibustering. We could have that debate and pass a bill that would protect our supply management system from American attacks, perhaps forever. I encourage my Conservative friends to end their filibustering.

Finally, as for the infamous issue that Mr. Trump raised about the border, we must admit that border management is a disaster. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government even lost track of certain travelers entering the country. It also lost track of irregular migrants. Who asked questions about this, day after day? It was the Bloc Québécois.

The Conservative Party is allowed 125 questions a week. I never heard them talk about border protection. I never heard them call for the closure of Roxham Road. I have never seen them do that. Today, they are acting holier-than-thou. The Conservative leader got up to make a speech about how we will have a warrior culture, not a woke culture. That is beyond belief.

If my Conservative colleagues had meaningful proposals to make, or even if the Liberal Party had meaningful proposals to make, what would we be talking about this evening? We would be talking about enhancing our bargaining relationship. If we want to enhance our bargaining relationship, we need to realize that 80% of everything we sell to the United States is primary materials.

These primary materials essentially serve the U.S. economy. What did the government do right when the tariffs were applied to aluminum? It applied retaliatory tariffs by selecting very specific products that put pressure on U.S. senators who could then have access to the government.

There has been no talk of that so far. I have not heard anyone say one word about that. The only thing we have heard is the vitriol of the Conservative leader, who is still trying to stoke public discontent and who is not capable of behaving like a head of government. I find that disappointing from the person who could be the next prime minister.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump wants to impose a 25% tariff on all Quebec and Canadian products. That would be a disaster for us and for Americans.

First, we appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet with his Quebec and provincial counterparts tomorrow. However, he will have to present a clear plan. He needs to take immediate action to protect supply management with Bill C-282. Ottawa needs to show that it will not give in when it comes to our softwood lumber, aluminum and aerospace industries or the Quebec economy as a whole.

Does the Prime Minister have a plan to present to his counterparts?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. One of the things he talked about was the cost of living. It seems to concern him a great deal. At the same time, we have concrete proposals here on the table, in the House of Commons, but nothing can move forward because of the current situation in the House. This will certainly have an impact.

In Quebec, there is no doubt about it. Farmers are telling us that the purpose of supply management is to protect Quebec's agricultural system. That is what feeds us. If we let this go and fail to ensure that everyone in the Senate and the House of Commons works together, the cost of food will be affected. We have to maintain our support for Bill C-282 to protect our supply management.

I introduced a bill that would improve seniors' financial security by increasing old age security for people aged 65 to 74, but they still have not received anything. Why not focus on these concrete solutions to help address the cost of living instead of relying on the kind of electioneering, one-time mini-measures that the government is planning?

International Trade

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every day, the House of Commons shows Quebec just why we really need to get the hell out of here. Until that time comes, we keep having to repeat ourselves, so let us repeat ourselves a bit more. All four parties in the House supported Bill C‑282 on supply management. It was one of the few points of consensus ever reached and, incidentally, was reached at an outdoor gathering. Two senators are blocking the bill.

Does the Prime Minister think that the Senate is worth more than the votes of all Quebec's elected members?