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

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, once again I was so pleased to be at a rally supporting supply management with my colleagues today on the Hill. It is important to note that supply management was initiated by a Liberal government just over 50 years ago. Then, we supported supply management, and today, we support supply management. Being a dairy farmer in Prince Edward Island, I am fully aware of the value of supply management, and I urge the Senate to pass Bill C-282.

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

Mr. Speaker, for years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the Senate to be abolished. It is an outdated institution and there is nothing democratic about it. We said it was useless, but we were wrong. It is not useless; it is harmful.

To the Senate, the will of elected representatives does not matter. Senators can decide not to respect that will without any problem or consequence. Bill C‑282 has the support of all the parties in the House. However, two unelected Liberal senators are subverting democracy by blocking the bill.

When will the Liberals call them to order?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the beginning of the speech given by my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères in which he put enormous pressure on me to deliver a quality speech. I will do my best not to disappoint him.

Honestly, there are several reasons why I am happy to speak on this subject today. First, it affords me the opportunity to comment on the question of transparency, accountability and the moral duties we must carry out when we agree to serve our constituents in the House of Commons.

Maybe I was naive, but when I decided to get involved in politics, I had principles and values, among them respect for institutions. I am convinced that we 33 Bloc Québécois members share this value and the desire to do our jobs while respecting institutions. Imagine that, a sovereignist Bloc member is saying that we are here to do our job while respecting the rules of the Parliament of Canada.

One of these rules is that it is up to the House to decide certain things, for example, the documents it wants to have in its possession, the documents it wants to obtain in various situations. Regardless of the situation, the fact remains that it is up to the House to determine the relevancy and necessity of obtaining some document or another. This is not a decision that the House may take and the government can treat as it sees fit. It is incumbent upon the government to respect the will of the House.

The Liberals are arguing that the RCMP says that this would be injecting politics into a police investigation, and that if it wants documents it has the means of requesting them. There is truth in that, but what we are asking for and what we agree on is that an order by the House Speaker be respected. Regardless of the Liberal members' arguments on this motion of privilege, the fact remains that it boils down to a ruling by the Speaker following a request by the House of Commons and its members.

I do not understand why they insist on obstructing. I do not understand why they keep doing as they please and determining what is and is not relevant in the Speaker's rulings. Honestly, I fail to understand the strategy.

Maybe they have something big to hide. Maybe they are trying to protect something big. Who knows. I do not even care to get into the theories about the scandal. The Conservatives have led the way on that, but they are in no position to lecture anyone about such things. If it is something they are trying to hide, it must be one whale of a secret. They are risking the survival of their fragile government, and they are delaying proceedings that could help them gain a friend until the holiday season.

This will hardly come as a scoop but there are currently two Bloc Québécois bills being used as preconditions for the Bloc's support of the Liberal government. The clock is ticking on both bills, and time is running out. If passed and implemented by October 29, they could guarantee the Bloc's support of this government until at least the holiday season, because both bills would be good for seniors aged 65 to 74 in Quebec and across Canada. I am talking about Bill C‑319, introduced by my colleague from Shefford, which has the support of all seniors groups. In a Canada-wide survey, 79% of respondents supported this Bloc demand. I do not understand why the Liberals are stubbornly dragging their feet on these important proceedings.

The other piece of legislation, every bit as important and another of the Bloc's demands in exchange for supporting the government—until the holidays, anyway—is Bill C‑282, which seeks to exclude supply management from any future trade negotiations. The bill is currently being blocked in the Senate by senators Boehm and Harder, whose arrogance defies comprehension.

One of the senators went so far as to insult my colleague, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, when he appeared before the Senate committee two weeks ago. The senator called him “special”, but not in a very flattering way. This unelected senator criticized the hard work of a member who has worked for years with farmers and agricultural producers in the supply management system to craft a quality piece of legislation. It was insulting. Both senators are blocking the democratic process, and that is shameful. I make no bones about it, I find that shameful.

When we ask the Liberals questions in the House, they respond as though we were born yesterday and have just fallen off the turnip truck. They say they have no control over senators they appointed to the Senate, that these are independent senators. Sure. No one thinks that Liberal appointees to the Senate are purely independent.

Frankly, I do not get their strategy, especially since the last time I checked the polls, the Liberals were at 22% nationally and were projected to capture 53 seats. That means that if the numbers hold up, 107 Liberal members will be gone after the next election. If it were me, I would want to work with the people reaching out and extending a hand, but I will not try to get inside their heads. It is a shame that we find ourselves today with a question of privilege that prevents us from advancing important work for seniors and farmers, not just in Quebec but in Canada as a whole. I do not understand.

Today we are discussing an issue of transparency, respect, jurisdiction and accountability that is an obligation for any public office holder and, by extension, a government. These are concepts the Liberals have a lot of difficulty with.

This is a government that has not come to terms with its minority status, as my colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères mentioned earlier. It has no respect for parliamentary rules and traditions. There is no better illustration than the number of times it has invoked closure to restrict parliamentary privileges in the House since 2021, at the beginning of its alliance with its NDP friends. I did a quick search up to the beginning of June, and it is not even up to date. At the start of June, we were up to 48 closure motions since the NDP-Liberal marriage. These 48 closure motions allowed the Liberals to circumvent 72 bill stages.

I hear the Conservatives say it is wrong for the government to have gagged them 48 times. I would caution them against complaining too loudly, because between 2011 and 2015, the Harper government invoked closure 104 times. It imposed a gag order on the House 104 times to push through its ideas and bills at the expense of democracy.

As an aside, the most odious part of all this, the worst example, the worst denial of democracy, the worst shirking of parliamentary rules was the indefinite imposition of a hybrid Parliament. Normally, this is something that is done by consensus, with frank, non-partisan discussions among the parties. Traditionally, changes that are so important to the workings of Parliament are made through consensus.

However, the Liberals decided once again to bargain this away in return for some sort of support for some sort of project, because I am guessing that some members preferred watching parliamentary proceedings from their home computer in their comfy clothes, while throwing another load of laundry into the washing machine and making spaghetti sauce for dinner. I find that sad. We deserved a healthy, thoughtful debate on how to improve the way we do things here in the House of Commons.

In short, I find it absurd that we keep talking, talking, talking about transparency with a government that is on its last legs and that we will remember for issues such as WE Charity, for which it went as far as proroguing Parliament to prevent us from getting to the bottom of things. We do not even know how bad the scandal was; we can only imagine. We had so much trouble getting answers about the laboratory in Winnipeg. We still remember that. ArriveCAN was not that long ago. The government gave over $60 million to two dopes working out of their basement. It is crazy. That is financial mismanagement.

At the same time, the fiscal imbalance means that Quebec and the provinces are having an even harder time, year after year, fulfilling their obligations, financing their health care and education systems, and providing housing for newly arrived immigrants and asylum seekers.

The situation is untenable. There are more and more scandals, each of which costs taxpayers a fortune. Frankly, the situation is unjustifiable and inexcusable.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing in the House today is not particularly edifying. I get the impression that both sides are simply trying to capitalize on the obstruction. I can confirm that it was my Conservative colleague who talked about lies. I would actually like to point out that a big one was told, specifically that the carbon tax applies in Quebec. We have a party on the other side that refuses to hand over documents and refuses to co-operate with the House.

Farmers are on the Hill today because we need to move several issues forward in the coming weeks, including protecting supply management with Bill C‑282. There is also Bill C‑319, which seeks to increase OAS by 10% for people aged 65 to 74. We have work to get done in the House. Members on both sides should stop standing in the way and shirking their responsibilities. This does nothing to advance democracy.

International Trade

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, having been a dairy farmer for a large portion of my life, I fully understand and appreciate the value of the supply management program. Our government fully supports Bill C-282 and urges the other place to move on this legislation as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something. The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑282, which excludes supply management from any future trade negotiations, and all parties in the House have at various times supported this bill, which is now in the Senate. I want to make this very clear. The government holds the executive power that stems from the democratic process.

Does the government still agree that supply management, which is so important to farmers, should be excluded from all future trade agreements?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all parties voted in favour of Bill C‑282.

This is the second time we have introduced this bill, which all parties voted for. It has been analyzed six ways from Sunday since 2020. It has one single clause. Not even the Bible has been analyzed that thoroughly.

Two senators, who must think we are a bunch of chumps, say they want to overrule how 338 elected representatives voted. Unacceptable.

Will the Liberals ask their two friends to stop thwarting democracy?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, enough with dragging things out at the expense of our farmers.

Every party voted in favour of Bill C‑282 on June 21, 2023. It was sent to the Senate over a year ago. The bill has one clause. The Senate has been studying one clause for over a year. How can that be? It is because two senators who are not elected by the people, Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, disagree, so they are dragging their feet. Two unelected senators want to undo the vote of elected members from all parties. They were appointed by the Liberals.

Who in the Liberal Party is going to explain to the cronies in the Senate how democracy works?

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

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

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about today is serious. Some people do not seem to realize what residents have been going through, and I do not mean lately, I mean since 1997. They watch big ships go by every day. It is a privilege they would not want to give up, because it is wonderful, but they are suffering the consequences. Year after year, they are seeing their land crumble away, but their property tax is not going down. They pay taxes and even though the land is smaller, they are not paying less.

They want to intervene. Most of them are even prepared to pay a lot of money. However, intervention is extremely complex and highly regulated. They would have to apply for permits. They would have to talk to one department and then talk to another department. They can intervene on their own land, but if the neighbour does not do anything, the water will get in through that neighbour's land and get underneath the structure. At the end of the day, the work will need to be redone or it will be completely ineffective. Worse yet, this can even harm a third neighbour.

A waterway is an ecosystem. It is a whole. If the riverbank is developed in one municipality, that development may have an impact three municipalities away. That is why a collaborative approach is needed.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has a hard time understanding how the federal government can so easily wash its hands of its responsibilities. Navigation is a federal responsibility. This is the government's responsibility. It established a program. It built structures in my riding in the 1960s and 1970s. Take the retaining wall in Berthierville, for example, which is now on the verge of collapsing into the water. The federal government built it. Then, in 1997, it said it would start being hands off and the community would just have to deal with it. As science and studies have evolved over time, we now know that these structures, known as grey infrastructure, may not be the best solution. They can speed up the flow of water, leading to repercussions elsewhere. This is common knowledge.

How can a G7 nation suddenly decide that, since cuts have to be made somewhere, this program should be cut and the people should be left to fend for themselves? What is more, the people being left to fend for themselves are Quebeckers, because the effects are being felt around Montreal and Lake Saint‑Pierre. That is the message we are getting. Earlier, another member asked if there would be a stronger response if the effects were being felt in Ontario. I hope we are wrong in saying that, but the current situation certainly leads us to that conclusion.

Can the government take responsibility and coordinate a response? That is what this is all about. It is about coordinating the response so that we do not abandon our constituents and our small municipalities, which do not have a lot of financial resources.

I will talk about the event that led me to be so interested in this file and why there is now a Lanaudière‑Mauricie St. Lawrence shoreline protection committee in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It was created on the initiative of a constituent named Roy Grégoire. I thank him very much for his work. He launched the petition and brought people together. That was how the committee came about.

However, Berthier—Maskinongé was not the first to tackle this issue, because another member had already been working on it for many years and had done some of the work. I want to take this opportunity to commend my very esteemed colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who has done a remarkable job. He demonstrated that earlier in his 20-minute speech. We could give him another 20 minutes and I am sure he could fill that time. We might even give him a third speaking slot of 20 minutes to fully explain to the people in the government what we have to do and what the problem is.

I cannot imagine how two opposition members found the time to meet with people, talk to them and conduct studies. We met with scientists at the universities in Montreal and Laval, in Quebec City, to understand how they are studying shoreline erosion, what new technologies are out there and what erosion control measures could be implemented.

Concrete walls may no longer be the answer, but there are things that can be done. How is it possible that we have a comprehensive understanding of what is happening, yet the government is not taking care of it? Come on.

A government leader asked me if we asked questions about this, as if it were our fault. Honestly, the committee worked very hard on this. We came up with serious, rigorous, science-backed recommendations. That is something we hear a lot in the House. The report was tabled a year and a half ago, and nothing has happened. Now we are being criticized for moving concurrence in this report in the House. I am sorry, but something has to be done.

I am working on another file in which nothing has been done for a year and a half. Bill C‑282 is in the Senate. We are doing the same thing. We are applying pressure, but nothing is moving forward, and that is not right.

People need to understand shoreline erosion. I shouted out to Roy and my colleague. I want to shout out to the mayors in my riding who have also taken—

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, passing Bill C‑282 will be crucial for dairy, poultry and egg farmers. Canada's dairy, egg, chicken, turkey and hatching egg producers have said as much in their open letter.

This is proof that when the Bloc Québécois stands up for what is good for Quebeckers, sometimes it is so good that Canada even wants a piece of the pie. There is a consensus among producers in Quebec and Canada: This is good for everyone.

Will the parties ask the Senate to stop blocking this consensus and pass Bill C-282?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is going on in the Senate is extremely serious. Not only are these two unelected members attacking our farmers, but they are also striking at the heart of democracy.

This chamber is where we vote on legislation. If Peter Boehm and Peter Harder do not agree with the laws and want to pass other ones, they should have the courage to resign from the Senate and be elected by the people. This is the seat of democracy. We represent the people. We supported Bill C‑282.

Will the government ensure that these two senators respect democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to Bill C‑282, which protects supply management.

We were wondering why two senators, Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, were blocking the bill in the Senate. Now we know, thanks to Stephen Harper's former adviser, Dimitri Soudas, who said about these two senators, and I quote, “two former deputy ministers who tried countless times to convince Harper to abandon supply management....I was there”.

Two senators appointed by the Liberals are trying to overrule the vote of the House. Do the Liberals think that is acceptable?

Government Priorities

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that it was our party that initiated the supply management program. It is our party that has supported the supply management program throughout its history. It is a very successful program.

We supported Bill C-282. We urge the other place to move on this legislation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seniors are coming together to improve their pensions. Some 79% of the population agrees. All parties voted in favour of this in committee. However, the Liberals refuse and only want to talk about procedure.

The same is true when it comes to supply management. Farmers are coming together in support of Bill C‑282. All parties support it, but it is being held up in the Senate. The Liberals refuse to get involved. They talk about procedure. There are two procedural problems.

At the end of the day, is the real problem not this Liberal government's lack of political will?

International Trade

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

Madam Speaker, as I have said before, our party has always supported supply management and will continue to do so. We expect that the other place will pass Bill C‑282.

I know that my Bloc Québécois colleagues are doing their job when it comes to the Senate. We are doing our job when it comes to the Senate too. We are making calls, but once again, I have not heard the official opposition party making many calls about this bill from the other side of the House.