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.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an ultimatum. Bill C‑282 on supply management has to pass before October 29.

That should be simple. The House voted in favour of the bill, but it has been stuck in the Senate for more than a year. Yesterday, in committee, a senator asked an excellent question. He said, and I quote, “Can you explain why this bill is being held up in the Senate? It is a bill that was supported by the vast majority of members in the democratically elected House.”

The Prime Minister appointed 80% of the senators. Will he tell them that it is time to release the bill?

Government Priorities

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have until October 29 to increase OAS benefits for seniors aged 74 and under and to protect supply management. They must pass Bill C-319 and Bill C-282. Why do we want the government to pass these two bills? Mostly, because they are good for Quebeckers, but also because there is a consensus in the House. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP agree on this.

Why is the government keeping us in suspense for no reason when it could be making gains for Quebec? Will the government respond to our demands to help seniors and farmers, yes or no?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I greatly appreciate.

I would like to begin with a bit of background about when Parliament resumed. I will outline what has happened since we returned to the House. Hearing our explanation may help people better understand our reasons for voting for or against the motions moved by the Conservatives. My basic premise is that some people need to have things explained to them for a long time before they understand. I will explain things for as long as it takes.

This fall, at our caucus meetings before Parliament resumed, this was the approach we were taking. We were thinking that, for the first time in about two and a half years, the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity to capitalize on what should have been the norm for the past two and a half years, namely a true minority government.

The people decided that this would be a minority government. However, what we have seen is that it has acted like a majority government with the NDP's help, which means that the government in power did not reflect the will of the people for two and a half years. Today, after the surprise termination of the agreement at the end of the summer, things are back to normal, that is, we have a minority government that is obliged to negotiate with the other parties. The Bloc Québécois now holds the balance of power that had slipped through its fingers in recent years. However, that did not prevent us from making headway. The opposition parties play an important role in both minority and majority governments. We proved that with the bills we pushed through despite everything and which I will address a bit later.

We saw that we had the balance of power and that we had an opportunity we have not had in a while. We were not going to discard it the first chance we got. We decided to take the opportunity to get more for Quebec. In some cases, these gains will also benefit all Canadians, and I say good for them. The Bloc Québécois is not that chauvinistic.

That is why, yesterday, we set out specific goals we wish to achieve, explicit gains we want to make before a set deadline. Unlike the NDP, who tied its own hands for two and a half years, we do not intend to blindly support the government until fall 2025. We do not intend to remain uselessly patient and allow the government to refuse to make a decision for absolutely nothing when it comes to our demands.

Our two main demands concern seniors and supply management. Our deadline for achieving our demands is the end of October, which is reasonable in both cases. It is reasonable in terms of content. The two bills in question are Bill C‑319, which was introduced by my colleague for Shefford, and Bill C‑282, which was introduced by my colleague for Montcalm and other members, including the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who preceded me. These two bills have already made their way through the House. At worst they are the subject of a relative consensus and, in some cases, they received a large majority of votes.

Bill C‑282, progressed so well that it made it to the Senate. We are therefore asking the government to perhaps make it easier, to ensure that there are no useless obstructions so that this bill can get to an irreversible point, as our leader mentioned. We want it to reach the point of no return by obtaining royal assent.

The same is true of the bill for seniors. The bill passed second reading. It was sent back to committee. The committee produced a report that received the unanimous support of the parties. There should not be any problem. This is an absolutely essential matter we are working on. This unanimity did not come out of thin air. It represents more purchasing power for seniors, regardless of their age, starting at age 65. It is the opposite of what the government was trying to do when it created two classes of seniors, when it created a difference between seniors age 65 to 74 and seniors age 75 and over.

Yesterday on Téléjournal we saw some statistics concerning seniors' needs.

It was reported that 59% of seniors aged 75 and over earn less than $30,000 a year, which is not much. In the case of seniors aged 65 to 74, that proportion is 54%. Despite all that, until recently, the government was telling us that seniors aged 65 to 74 do not need as much money as seniors who are 75 and over and that this older group really needs help. As if the cost of living were not the same for both groups. As if groceries cost less when you get to age 75. As if there were an additional discount. As if prescription drugs were less expensive.

The Bloc Québécois could not make any sense out of this and decided it was time to put an end to the discrimination. The argument that one age group has fewer needs than the other does not hold water. That is evident when we look at who is getting the GIS, and we should note that anyone receiving the GIS cannot be that well off: 39% of seniors aged 75 and over are entitled to the GIS, while 29% of seniors aged 65 to 74 qualify to receive it. Our motion will make it possible to enhance the old age pension, the OAS, which will benefit many seniors who need it, despite the arguments we have been hearing from the government that these people are not a priority.

Our measures are reasonable, and so is our deadline. We said October 29, which gives the government almost five weeks to get these bills, which are already at a late stage, passed. In the meantime, we do not intend to lose this opportunity to make gains. That means, and this is no surprise, that we will be voting against today's motion. I hope that the Conservatives understand why, if they are listening at all to what we are saying.

That is how we work. We take a logical approach. We work to make gains for our constituents. That is exactly what we are doing. If, like some people, we were only interested in ourselves, we might be satisfied with our victory in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. We might be satisfied with the polls, which show we are in a pretty good position, and decide that, if we call an election right away, it will be good for the Bloc Québécois.

No, we chose to do what is good for Quebec, as we have always done and as we will continue to do. If, for example, we make gains and obtain results with Bill C‑319 and Bill C‑282, we will not let the government walk all over us by bartering support for interference, for example. We will not vote in favour of something that is bad for Quebec because we managed to achieve something good for Quebec. We will not change who we are in future votes. I hope that both the government and the Conservatives understand that. We are telling them our strategy for the future, in case they missed that. If it is good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois votes for it. If it is bad for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois votes against it. That will never change.

When we are asked whether we have confidence in the government, the answer is that we do not trust the Liberals any more than we trust a potential Conservative government to look after Quebec's interests. It is a good thing that the Bloc Québécois is here, because the Conservatives and the Liberals are both the same. They both want to attack Bill 21, and neither have any lessons to give in terms of oil subsidies. When it comes to immigration, the war Quebec is waging may have begun with the Liberals, but we have no guarantees about what the Conservatives plan to about another one of Quebec's demands, namely, the distribution of asylum seekers, since this is at a standstill with Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. What do those provinces have in common? They all have Conservative premiers. These are the same people who are unable to respond to Quebec's needs and who are saying that Quebec needs to figure things out itself.

When we are asked whether we have confidence, the answer is no. The only confidence we have is in ourselves and our ability to make gains. That is how we are going to operate moving forward. We are also not worried about an election. We are ready. If we need to campaign in the snow, then we will bundle up and do that. There is not much that scares the Bloc Québécois.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I also have the good fortune to work with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Of course, I supported Bill C‑282, as did our government. I am well aware that the Leader of the Opposition and his local riding association have twice raised the idea of getting rid of supply management with his political party. The possibility exists that the House leader of the official opposition could become the minister of foreign affairs. He once described Brexit as a good thing.

I would like my colleague to help me understand the political game that the Conservatives are playing at the expense of farmers, specifically when it comes to Bill C‑234.

Finance

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, today my party's leader asked the Prime Minister to tell us how important Bill C‑282, on supply management, is to him. The Prime Minister told him that he promised farmers he would never undermine supply management in international agreements again.

I would like my colleague to tell me the difference between the Prime Minister's promise and Bill C‑282.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to learn this afternoon that we were going to discuss the Standing Committee on Finance's report on the pre-budget consultations from February.

Although the report was tabled in February, most of the work was done the previous fall. We worked very long hours in committee, where we heard from many witnesses so that we could take all aspects and needs of Quebec's economy and, of course, Canada's economy into account.

We even toured the provinces during the two break weeks. During the first break week, in October 2023, we went to the Maritimes, and during the break week in November, we visited all the other provinces, starting in Quebec and ending in British Columbia. There is nothing like going out into the community and hearing directly from the people. It gives groups and witnesses a chance to take part in the discussions and tell us about their needs and their realities. It makes our work easier so that we can better sense and understand what is happening on the ground.

Members may be wondering what a member of the Bloc Québécois could possibly be doing travelling all over Canada and listening to organizations in other provinces. First, their needs may overlap with those of Quebec. Second, we also invited all of the organizations that defend the rights of francophones in all of the provinces of Canada. That gave us the opportunity to make contacts, gain a better understanding of francophones' realities and see how they are often isolated and have to fight to continue speaking one of the two official languages. There is still a lot of work to be done. Obviously, we continue to stand in solidarity with Franco-Canadians and always will.

From our consultations, we developed a series of recommendations that we presented to the government. Obviously, we are in constant contact with the government. The minister even has staff who follow the work in committee and who can see what recommendations may be made in the future. It is an important job to keep the minister and her team informed of the needs of the Canadian economy and also of Quebec's economy, which is what matters to the Bloc Québécois.

The report begins by noting that all the recommendations must be read and considered “in accordance with the powers of each jurisdiction”. This is an important show of respect in regard to interference. It serves as a reminder to the government that, when the political system was developed, the decision was made to create a federation. That was the compromise. In fact, we know that John A. Macdonald and his friends wanted a legislative union where everything would be decided in Ottawa, but others disagreed. For Quebec to get on board, there had to be levels of government that were equally sovereign in their own areas of jurisdiction.

However, what I have seen in the House since 2015—and this was also the case in previous years—is that the government is clearly tempted to constantly grab new powers, to centralize power, to want to make all the decisions. This goes against legal instruments and, more importantly, it flies in the face of respect for my nation, the Quebec nation. The very beginning of the report, therefore, reiterates the importance that all recommendations be made with respect for each government's areas of jurisdiction.

When my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I asked the parliamentary secretary questions, we brought up a recommendation that we care about in the report currently under discussion. A majority of elected members in committee, including the Liberals, passed this recommendation. I would like to quote it.

It recommends that the government:

Increase the Old Age Security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74 and review the method for indexing to account for wage growth in Canada.

In barely half an hour, the House will discuss the bill introduced by my esteemed colleague from Shefford precisely to support an OAS increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. In its report, the Standing Committee on Finance advised the government and all members to support this bill. That is very important. In fact, all the parties supported the bill. The problem is that the government must give the royal recommendation to allow the bill to be studied further.

The Bloc Québécois told this government, which is now a minority government, that if it wants our support for the next few months, it has to support Bill C-319 by giving it a royal recommendation. That is very important. It is a very important measure. It is about dignity.

We look forward to hearing the government's response, which will tell us whether we will continue working in the House for the well-being of seniors and young retirees in Quebec and across Canada, or whether we should hop on our buses and go talk to everyone and find out how many Liberal members will be left in the House after the election. The choice is up to the government.

We are talking about seniors aged 65 to 74 because the government increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. That is great, but if the pension had been increased starting at age 65, I would be clapping with both hands. However, since the increase is only for 75 and up, I can only clap with one hand, because the job is only half done. Now a significant inequity needs to be corrected.

Why do we want to enhance the OAS? It is a federal support program, and there are not a lot of those. This is a jurisdictional matter. When the program was created, the idea was to index it annually to the average wage. For decades, that did not happen. The pension ended up being too small to enable seniors to live with a modicum of dignity. A top-up was required, and one was provided for seniors 75 and up, but there is still a huge gap for those 65 to 74. Now seniors are divided into two classes: those who are entitled to dignity and those who are not. Why is this happening? It is unacceptable.

My parents are 71 and 72. The physical health, well-being and financial security of people who are between 65 and 74 varies quite a bit. That is where the idea for a universal program came from. Under this program, those who earn a lot of money do not get the full pension because they have enough money. However, the program is there to help those who have needs. That is the point of a social program. The OAS should be indexed to the increase in the average wage to allow seniors to retain that dignity.

There may be some people in that age bracket who had very physically demanding jobs and who are physically unable to continue working. They need to rest, and that rest is well deserved. We need to be there for those men and women. I mention women here because, quite often, the people who do not have a private pension plan, RRSP or employer pension plan are women.

Often they are women because, when we ask people to be caregivers, to lend a hand and to make a contribution, unfortunately, in our society, there is still a lot of inequity. Too often, women are the ones who are asked to make sacrifices for the well-being of others. When elderly parents need a caregiver, very often, it is a woman who quits her job to help her parents.

During that time, she is not contributing to the Quebec pension plan, if she lives in Quebec, or to the Canada pension plan. She cannot contribute to a private plan either. Then, if her husband gets sick, she is the one who will once again sacrifice her job and her career to take care of him. It is often the same thing with children.

Quite often, it is women who make these sacrifices and have to forgo the more dignified retirement they might have had. Social programs such as the OAS are there to support them. Statistics show that senior women who live alone are overrepresented among the poor. It is important to restore fairness and justice.

Women often give of themselves to support the well-being of others, so the least we can do is restore some balance with a social safety net to catch them. We need to give seniors aged 65 to 74 something. We need to increase the OAS, which was not indexed to inflation or the average wage. It is a matter of dignity. It is one of the federal government's core responsibilities, so we are asking it to take action.

All parties supported the measure, and it is up to the government to give royal assent. The Bloc Québécois sees this as a matter of confidence in the government. Is the government there to help people? Is it there to help people in need within the limits of its jurisdiction? If so, this is a golden opportunity to prove it. Our confidence in the government will depend on it.

I am the finance critic and my counterpart is the Minister of Finance. Like most of her colleagues, she is particularly talented at extending congratulations, boasting, networking and maintaining good relations. While that may often save time, it does not result in any serious work or specific commitments. That is why, this morning, my leader, together with the party officers, announced that we are setting a deadline. If this bill is not in force by October 29, if it has not received a royal recommendation and royal assent by that date, we will work with the other opposition parties to discuss whether we still have confidence in the government. It is a matter of dignity.

Furthermore, the Minister of Finance told me that this bill would cost an estimated $3 billion a year. She said that it is expensive, that it is a lot of money. Well, that is what governing is all about. Governing means making choices.

We have resources. How do we allocate them? What do we spend them on? Three billion dollars a year is expensive, yet the Trans Mountain pipeline cost $34 billion. That is very expensive for a heavily polluting industry whose companies earn record profits, astronomical profits. Most of the dividends paid out by these companies leave Canada and go to other economic interests. It is an industry that does not need money, but the government gives it $34 billion to help it out. However, $3 billion is apparently too much to spend on seniors aged 65 to 74, who are often women living alone. Does the government work for the oil lobbies, or does it work for people in need? That is what we are wondering, and its decision on the royal recommendation will give us an answer.

I talked about the $34 billion for Trans Mountain, compared to the $3 billion a year needed to increase the OAS. I would also like to talk about the Minister of Finance's plan for what she calls a “green economy”. We see right through that. We know this government's newspeak. In its newspeak, “green economy” means “support for fossil fuel industries”. Its plan to provide $83 billion over the next few years has multiple components, but it essentially involves programs made to measure for the oil and gas industry, which, I repeat, has no need of government support, is highly profitable and rakes in record profits year after year.

Catherine McKenna, the Liberal Party's former environment minister, said it better than anyone, I think. The oil and gas industry needs no support. We paid $34 billion for Trans Mountain and $83 billion for programs like carbon capture. Does the industry need that? The government says that it does and that this $83 billion is more important than $3 billion for seniors, who, as I said, are often women living alone who need this money to maintain a modicum of dignity.

Governing is about making choices. The government is now a minority government. If it wants to dance with us, it needs to stop serving this extremely profitable industry that does not need support. Instead, it needs to focus on the people who actually need support, as we are proposing in Bill C-319, which will be debated shortly, within the limits of its jurisdiction. That is very important.

The $83 billion includes carbon capture. The oil sands industry is getting help to set up small modular nuclear reactors to heat the sands, which will help it save on gas. The gas could be exported, because that is so environmentally friendly, using the new Coastal GasLink pipeline. It could also be used to make hydrogen, because that $83 billion also includes a tailor-made plan to transform the gas saved thanks to the nuclear reactors into hydrogen, which can then be exported.

Is that the government's vision for the future, its green vision?

Meanwhile, it says that investing $3 billion a year for seniors aged 65 to 74 who need it is too expensive. Among the OECD countries, which are basically the 30 richest countries, Canada is near the bottom in terms of the gap between pre- and post-retirement income. This is called the replacement rate. This means that Canada is basically the country where a person's income drops the most when they stop working and retire. That has to change.

The reason Canada is doing so poorly is that the existing social programs were not indexed. The government needs to ensure the dignity of its citizens within the limits of its jurisdictions. In this case, we are talking about the OAS, which falls under federal jurisdiction. Past governments failed in their duty by refusing to index the OAS, gradually undermining seniors' dignity. The government topped up the payments for seniors aged 75 and up, but it decided to abandon another class of seniors, those aged 65 to 74. This is now a matter of confidence for the Bloc Québécois. It is a matter of dignity. The OECD data remind us that Canada has fallen very far behind and is doing very poorly in this area.

Three billion dollars a year is a fair amount of money, but baby boomers are about to retire in droves. Given the very low replacement rate, their income will drop, which will have an indirect impact on the entire economy. What will their consumption levels look like? If they have access to a decent income, they will be able to maintain minimum consumption levels and help keep the economy running smoothly. If not, then we could experience an economic slowdown.

In this regard, I would like to remind members of the situation in Japan. Japan's population has been aging at a faster rate than in other countries. The economy has stagnated faster than elsewhere, with sluggish growth rates and deflation, because seniors, who no longer need to buy new cars and new homes, will limit their consumption. It is partly a cultural choice, but that does not always explain it; Japan also has poverty issues that have led the entire economy to stagnate since the nineties. That needs to be looked at. It is a matter of dignity, but it is also a matter of ensuring a well-functioning economy.

I will stop here for the part of the report that supports our Bill C‑319, which we will debate in exactly 18 minutes from now. However, I will make one last point in the minute I have left.

It concerns another recommendation in the report that has to do with supply management. That recommendation, which was supported by the Liberal members who form the government, reads as follows:

Make no further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations by supporting Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

The bill has gone through all the stages. It is now before the Senate. I hope the Senate moves quickly to pass it. I hope the government and the Liberal members here are talking to their friends in the other place. They do not sit very often but, for once, they have a very important job to do. We need to pass Bill C-282 as quickly as possible in order to implement it, as the majority of members of the Standing Committee on Finance expressed in the report we are discussing here.

For too long, our farmers have borne the brunt of trade agreements. For too long, we have chosen to sacrifice our farmers in order to ink a deal. For us, land use means respecting our farmers and, in this case, respecting supply management.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Kings—Hants includes a large number of supply-managed farms. That is very important to Nova Scotia, of course, but also to Quebec and all of Canada.

I support Bill C-282 and so does the government. The Senate is independent. I think a conversation with senators on the importance of this bill is, indeed, necessary.

I also have some concerns about the Conservatives' position on this and their support for the supply-managed sector. The reality is that they voted against protecting supply management. This is a major concern for the people in our ridings, especially among farmers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarifications my colleague just made.

He talked a lot about rural areas. I know that his riding is rural and that supply-managed production is important there. He knows as well as I do that Bill C‑282 was passed in the House in June 2023, as hon. members will recall. It is now September 2024. It has been languishing in the Senate for over a year, gathering dust.

I would like to know if he and his caucus have talked about how his Prime Minister could potentially intervene. Are calls being made to senators to tell them that the government voted in favour of this bill, that it officially supports the bill, that the government wants it finished up, that it might allow the Liberals to stay in office a little longer if Quebec gets this win?

Can my colleague answer that? Time is of the essence.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is thrilled to see that the NDP-Liberal coalition appears to have come to an end. The people elected a minority government in 2019 and did not give anyone a blank cheque in 2021. The Bloc Québécois has a lot of weight when it comes to promoting Quebec's priorities and interests.

With the NDP-Liberal alliance, we again found ourselves with a government that completely ignores Quebec, its needs, its priorities and the consensuses reached by the National Assembly. There has been a growing centralization of decision-making power and, as a result, Canadians are deciding what is done in Quebec. There has also been a repeated rejection of Quebec's positions as expressed in unanimous resolutions in our National Assembly. Normally, when the National Assembly is unanimous, there is nothing more to be said.

I will start with a few examples.

There are the infrastructure programs. Quebec has requested the federal government to transfer the amounts unconditionally, since this is not federal infrastructure and Quebec must be free to manage its own land as it sees fit. The federal government has ignored this request. Worse yet, they added insult to injury by creating a federal department in charge of provincial infrastructure and municipalities. Even the Leader of the Opposition tried to get tough on municipalities.

There are the housing programs. Quebec asked that Ottawa respect its jurisdiction and simply help improve its programs. Not only did the Liberal-NDP alliance ignore that, but Quebec got burned and received less than its share of the money spent on new federal programs.

Quebec has repeatedly rejected federal interference through a myriad of unanimous resolutions. Every one of them has been ignored by the federal government, which continues to increase the number of federal strategies in areas that are not under its jurisdiction. Take, for example, the labour force, federal strategies addressing various aspects of health care, and the rejection of Quebec's consensus on advance requests for MAID. As the critic for seniors, I hear a lot about this last point.

Then we have the inadequate transfers to Quebec, which are not increasing quickly enough to meet the population's needs. This results in overcrowded classrooms and a health care system that is close to its breaking point. More substantial health transfers are urgently needed.

There again, they developed a whole range of federal programs in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction with money that should have been used to properly fund Quebec's essential programs. I will give an example. Last June, we criticized the age well at home initiative, a program launched by the federal government through the back door during its last campaign in Quebec. Lastly, Quebec groups do not have the money they should have. The Quebec minister responsible for seniors is asking that the funds be transferred. She has a home care plan but no, the federal government wants to set conditions.

All this is happing while the federal government, which barely provides Canadians with any services, managed to find the funding to hire 109,000 additional federal public servants whose main duty appears to be to tell Quebeckers what to do. In committee, I asked why we were outsourcing more. I did not get an answer.

The fiscal and environmental policy is largely focused on the needs of western Canada, with $83 billion in tax credits to the oil companies, plus $34 billion of our money pumped into the Trans Mountain pipeline. I will get back to this later. I would like people to stop telling me that we do not have enough money to implement Bill C-319.

Second, there have been changes in the House. The constituents of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun did well by Quebec last week by electing the Bloc Québécois candidate, adding to Quebec's voice and its political weight. I hope that we will be able to welcome our 33rd member of the Bloc Québécois soon.

The Bloc Québécois wants to know whether the government has taken note of this change and whether there will be a realignment that will allow Quebeckers to get something from the government soon. Only then will we be able to determine whether the government should fall or whether it should be given a little more time to fix its mistakes and take our priorities into account. We want more for Quebec. Rather than blindly opposing or supporting the Liberal or Conservative parties, the Bloc Québécois wants to move forward with issues that Quebeckers care about. If it is good for Quebec, we will support it. If it is not good for Quebec, we will reject it. This is nothing new; it is not a surprise. We have always been very clear where we stand. It is not as if we woke up one morning and decided on that.

In 2021, our campaign slogan was simply “Québécois”, or “Quebeckers”, to make it clear that, for us, only Quebec matters. In 2019, it was “Le Québec, c’est nous”, or “We are Quebec”, to indicate that we were the ones who would carry the Quebec consensus. In 2015, it was “On a tout à gagner”, or “We have everything to gain”, to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois was going to work to make Quebec win in Ottawa and achieve gains for Quebec. Today we are giving this government one last chance to earn our trust, to take immediate action for Quebeckers.

Fourth, let us talk about priorities. As a first step, we are calling on the new minority government to give royal recommendation to Bill C-319, which would put an end to the two classes of seniors and increase old age security by 10% for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

Old age security is one of the rare truly federal social programs. While the federal government meddles in many things, it has neglected its primary responsibilities. We want to give the government a chance to realign itself, assume its basic responsibilities and enable seniors to live a decent life.

According to the OECD, Canada is one the industrialized nations where the population faces the greatest decline in purchasing power on retirement. We could do much better. I do not want to hear that it costs too much. It would cost $3 billion a year. That represents 0.57% of government spending.

Earlier, my hon. colleague from La Prairie aptly said that it is not the cost that is stopping the government; it just has other priorities. There is the $34 billion to buy and build the Trans Mountain pipeline and the $83 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Do they really need it? The government paid $2 billion to Sun Life, a private company, to run the federal dental insurance plan when this could have been done for free with a transfer to Quebec. It is an area under Quebec's responsibility.

We are asking the government, which is now a minority government, to focus on its responsibilities. Its central mission is to protect our people, especially retirees between the ages of 65 and 74, the people it deliberately set aside in favour of its own priorities, which are not Quebeckers' priorities. The rest will be judged on merit.

We will oppose even the slightest interference, including on a confidence vote. If the government ever contradicts the unanimous will of Quebec's National Assembly in the slightest, we will oppose it, including on a confidence vote. When we find that the government has failed to recognize its minority status and the importance of heeding the Bloc Québécois's demands, which are widely supported in Quebec, we will pull the plug. Doing so today, before we even know whether the government is cognizant of the new reality, would amount to taking a decent retirement income away from Quebec seniors.

What is more, we promised farmers that we would do everything in our power to protect supply management. As the member for Shefford, I have no choice but to say it. The members for Montcalm, Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will be in the Senate tomorrow morning to encourage senators to quickly pass our Bill C-282, which was passed by the House almost a year and a half ago. This bill would prevent any future government from creating new breaches in the supply management system for farmers in Quebec. That is crucial. These are real issues facing real people, not the frenzied spectacle that the Conservatives are putting on today.

Voting in favour of the Conservatives' motion would be irresponsible and unworthy of the mandate Quebeckers gave us to defend them. As members of Parliament, our work is to represent and defend our constituents. That is why we were elected.

The Conservatives' motion has nothing to do with any issue whatsoever. In fact, the Conservatives' motion is just a game. We have all seen the polls, and we know that the current government is nearing its end. What is more, we are eager to ask Quebeckers again for their support. We have always done everything we can to show them we are worthy of their trust. That is what we are doing once again today. Given the results of the LaSalle—Émard—Verdun by-election, we have nothing to fear on that account.

However, it is far from certain that a new government will be for the best. Every time the Conservative Party talks about public policy, it is to ask for the elimination of the carbon tax outside Quebec. There is absolutely nothing for Quebeckers in that.

Claiming that the Bloc Québécois has become friends with the federal Liberals is just nonsense. We trust Quebeckers, but the House of Commons and the federal government are controlled by Canadians. Moreover, the Bloc Québécois has no faith in any government in the federal system. Today's motion would have us choose between the Liberals and the Conservatives in Canada, but we choose Quebec. We want more for Quebec. Right now, we are trying to help our people. Then we will decide if it is worth it, but not today.

A majority of the House of Commons passed Bill C-319 in principle. After a detailed study of the text, the committee unanimously returned it to the House of Commons for final passage, which could happen within the next few weeks.

There is, however, a problem. Since the bill involves spending, the government has veto rights. We are asking the government to lift its veto and give royal recommendation to Bill C-319 so Parliament can pass it at third reading. In committee, the members from all parties voted in favour of the bill. However, today, when it comes time to buckle down and implement the bill, the Liberals and Conservatives appear to be hesitating. I remind you that the first part of the bill aims to eliminate discrimination based on age. Let us put an end to this unacceptable inequity.

In the 2021 budget, the Liberals created two classes of seniors. People aged 75 and over saw their pension increase by 10%. People between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. It is time to put an end to this. I am not the only one saying it: Every seniors' group I have talked to in my two-year tour agrees. I see my colleagues. I met with seniors in Mirabel, Terrebonne and Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Everyone agrees, including the people at FADOQ. Enough is enough. Let us put an end to this unacceptable inequity. Let us give the government one last chance. We must seek royal recommendation for the dignity of seniors.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have the opportunity to ask my colleague one last question. Since he is still here, I will ask him anyway. Perhaps he can answer me by me asking a question.

He spoke about supply management in response to a question from my NDP colleague. He said that his government has always supported supply management. That is reasonably accurate. Bill C-282, which is important, was passed in the House in June, not in June of 2024, but in June of 2023. The Senate will finally start examining the bill on Wednesday, September 25. My colleague said that his government supports supply management. He officially supported the bill. Even the minister at the time voted in favour of it on behalf of the executive branch of the government. Perhaps it is time to pick up the phone and ask the Senate to deal with this promptly. I am not sure it is reasonable to take over a year to begin examining a bill. That was the comment I wanted to make. If the person in question did not hear it, members can pass the question on to him.

Today's debate revolves around concurrence in the report entitled “How Government and Industry Can Fight Back Against Food Price Volatility”. The title is important; we are talking about fighting volatility, not controlling prices. We all want food to be less expensive. We have all seen terrible inflation in the food sector, while in other sectors inflation was under control or not as high.

We obviously do not live in a totalitarian regime. The government cannot set food prices. It must therefore take action to try to tame the volatility. Funnily enough, supply management is one of the best methods our farmers have found to control price volatility. We always end up with prices that are reasonable and based on the average cost of production. We are therefore encouraging people to be more efficient while also letting them make a decent living. At the end of the day, the consumer pays a reasonable price. We should be looking at these models. That is why we need to pass this bill quickly.

This is the committee's 18th report. I wanted to mention the number of reports because I think that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is exemplary. Its members work together in the interest of the common good—until recently anyway. Let us hope it stays that way. People are working to adopt measures to help the agriculture sector.

This study was resumed after the call of the Minister of Industry, who had a meeting with the five major grocery stores. These five big grocery companies control 80% of the food market in the country. They were asked to make an effort. The file came back to us. At committee, we had already done a study on the same topic. We ended up studying the same thing twice. That was not exactly efficient, but it did allow us to be more thorough and confront the five big grocery companies.

These sectors trample on the competition to then become an oligopoly. No matter what any executive of these companies might claim tomorrow morning, next week or in six months, when five companies control 80% of the market in a given sector, that is an oligopoly. If they are not colluding, because that is illegal, then they are at least watching each other and copying each other. We only need to look at the bonuses that were cut at the end of the COVID-19 crisis: They ended on the very same day for everyone. What a coincidence.

All irony aside, when we heard from these companies' CEOs last spring, they all agreed to give the Competition Bureau their profit figures. The Competition Bureau had been tasked with studying what was happening with grocery prices. I personally put the question to the five representatives. They claimed that there were no big profits. They told us that they had managed to keep the same margins because of pharmacy activities or other factors. When we asked them to show us figures supporting their claims, they told us they could not comply because they were all competitors.

The Competition Bureau was doing more or less the same study as we were, at the same time. However, the Bureau's studies are more confidential. We asked company CEOs if they would provide the Competition Bureau with their figures, and they all said yes, with no exceptions.

A few weeks later, we received the Competition Bureau's report. In the first few pages, the report's authors lamented the lack of transparency and the fact that they had not been able to obtain the much-talked-about figures. When we met with the CEOs again in committee a few months later, I asked each of them the same question. I told them that, apparently, some of them had not provided their figures. I then asked them if they had. They all said yes.

It really is a beautiful world we live in, is it not? Somebody somewhere did not tell the truth. We just do not who it is. This example, which is a little anecdotal, I agree, is still important. It is a matter of transparency towards the government. This example shows that one of the government's responsibilities is to ensure that sectors remain competitive.

The committee came up with several very interesting recommendations. I see colleagues who sit on the committee with me. I am almost sure they would agree with my next statement. We have published 18 reports. We work very hard. We are serious and rigorous. When we adopt a report, it usually passes by consensus or with an overwhelming majority. We want these proposals to move forward. However, if we were to measure the thickness of the dust covering each of these reports, which are sitting on the shelf, we would be very disappointed. That is the first point I wanted to make. When I was rereading the recommendations just now, I thought to myself how good the report was. There is only one exception, one small caveat that I will get to later. Otherwise, it was a wonderful report.

I will return to the recommendations. The first reads as follows:

The Committee, noting the particular importance of temporary foreign workers to the agriculture and agri-food sectors, recommends that the Government of Canada reduce the administrative burden....

This has still not been done. We are still waiting. The government has even made things worse. We suggested asking for fewer labour market impact assessments and now they are requested more frequently than ever. They used to be requested once a year, but now it is every six months. We might understandably hesitate to write anything in the next report for fear that the government will do the opposite. It is a little ironic. Sometimes we wonder whether the recommendations we adopt in committee serve any purpose at all.

We therefore need to be careful about that. We need to keep the recognized employer pilot program going. We also need to be careful in the agri-food sector. We often talk about the agricultural industry but less often about the agri-food sector. Let us remember that what is produced must be processed before it is eaten. Agri-food is the next step, an extension of the agriculture industry. There are no limits on the number of foreign workers that can be hired in the agriculture industry, but there are limits in the agri-food sector. It is difficult to hire workers to cut up pork in a meat factory. I can tell members that. I would invite the MPs who have not already done so to visit a food processing plant. It will become obvious to them that we need these workers.

Is it 30%? Is it 20%? Is it 10%? I am concerned about the last announcement. The cap was reduced from 30% to 20%. There was talk of reducing it to 10%. I hope that agri-food will not be affected by this 10% limit. My colleague from Drummond asked the parliamentary secretary about this a few minutes ago. It is important to be smart. Every time the government does something, it has to think about the consequences. It should not do something just to have a nice announcement. It needs to look at how the measures put in place will apply on a daily basis.

I am not saying that it is wrong to lower the cap from 20% to 10% in other labour sectors. However, in agri-food, I think this will create a serious problem. I would not want to see food processing centres move elsewhere in a few years because they cannot recruit workers. We can mechanize production and make investments, but the government still needs to have a little more vision and provide incentives to modernize these processing plants. That was another one of our recommendations, but it did not appear in the report. This recommendation was included in a number of reports, but it has not yet been implemented. I would therefore invite the ministers to read the committee reports.

The first recommendation was to be thorough and take regional characteristics into account before making any changes.

The second recommendation had a lot to do with the impact of climate change, something we have talked about. Even grocery store suppliers told us that it was sometimes hard to get supply and that they had to go elsewhere because of weather events that had impacted supply. That can create scarcity, which also leads to higher prices. All of this needs to be taken into account. That is why we need to ensure that we have local food resilience, that we are able to feed our people and keep our farmers in place. To keep them in place, we might have to support them more than we currently do, through the risk management programs, for example. That was not part of this study. We did not mention it again, but we did have discussed it at length and we have produced more than one report on the subject.

The sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership will be renewed in 2028. I feel like we are going to wait until November 2027 to start talking about it, when the government should already be sitting down with stakeholders to see what changes need to be made. We will need to make major changes here, unless we do not want it to work. These programs need an in-depth review, better funding and, above all, a better coverage rate.

Some agricultural producers are telling me that they no longer take out insurance because the likelihood that it will benefit them to be insured is so small compared to the high premiums they are being charged and the small payout they will receive in compensation. That does not work for a company. These people are business owners. Farming tends to be romanticized, but first and foremost, farmers are business owners. They need to balance their books at the end of the month. Things are so hard now that 44% of Quebec farmers have a second job. They work off the farm so they can balance their books at the end of the month. Is it right for the people who feed us to have to take on other work? They take the train in the morning, go to work, come home and go back to the farm in the evening. It makes no sense and it needs to be addressed. It is easy for me to go off on a tangent.

The only recommendation the Bloc Québécois expressed concern about was recommendation 3, which calls on the Government of Canada to pass Bill C‑234 unamended. We initially backed this bill because we believe in the agriculture exemption. However, when it came back from the Senate with an amendment, we suggested embracing the step forward that it represented and then determining what could be done about the buildings. The Senate had taken out the buildings.

Of course, decisions are sometimes difficult to make. However, I think it was the right decision under the circumstances. As a matter of fact, when the bill came back from the Senate, we could have wrapped it up in a week, finished debate, voted and accepted this proposal. That way, farmers would be entitled to the exemption for grain drying now, this fall. I remember that the first speech I made when we came back in January 2024 was about that exact aspect. It was almost a year ago.

Instead, the Conservatives decided to kill time with speeches and the debate never ended. We have yet to vote on this bill because they are looking to get political mileage out of this issue.

I know that the carbon tax has become a sticky issue, politically speaking. It has been very polarizing. However, this bill would improve things in the fall for grain farmers. If any of them are watching us, I say to them that all we need to do is vote next week for the grain drying exemption to come into effect. It is not in effect at the moment. That is the end of my tangent. Obviously, when it comes to this recommendation, I was not among the majority. Nevertheless, we were pleased with the report as a whole and we adopted it.

I will now move on to recommendation 4. It recommends that the government review its labelling regulations. That is a great example. I will not have enough time to talk about all the recommendations since I have so much to say about each topic, but I will talk about the ones I have time to address.

Regarding labelling, Health Canada decided to protect citizens and help them be healthy. If a food contains fat or sugar, that will be generally indicated on the food, but the rest of the content of the food will not. That is a fine example of a policy that was adopted quickly to make the government look good, to give the appearance of being good and kind and of having protected the public.

For example, dried cranberries need a label because they have a very bitter taste, so they need added sugar. I am not saying that the package should not say that it contains sugar, but when people go to the grocery store and see that it contains too much sugar to be healthy, without seeing the rest, it takes away some of the nuance. Cranberries are very effective antioxidants. They have a whole bunch of health benefits.

I would like to return to this idea, if anyone on the government side is listening. We need to be smarter with our policies. Let us look at France, for example, which has adopted a “Nutri-Score” system, rather than just saying that a food has a lot of fat or a lot of sugar, which takes away all the nuance and means that a bunch of exemptions are needed. I have not mentioned it yet, but dairy products got an exemption. Ground meat got an exemption pretty quickly, because the same cut of non-ground meat would not be labelled, which is completely ridiculous. People figured that out fast. It took two weeks to get that exemption. I can say bravo for once, but that should happen more often.

France's “Nutri-Score” system assigns each food item a letter, either A, B, C, D or E. For foods like cranberries, instead of being assigned the letter E because the front-of-package label shows the word “sugar” in big letters, the product might be rated B or C, since it has other health benefits. Decisions have to be informed and carefully considered.

It is important to remember that labelling changes come at a high cost to the industry. The government says it wants to lower the cost of groceries, but the cost of changing the food labelling policy every two years is huge. For one thing, consider the packaging that will be thrown in the recycling bin. We need to think carefully. We need to ask what exactly it is that we want to change generally, among all the labelling features, and then make the changes once and only once, so that the industry can adjust. The industry needs time to adjust too.

Moving on to the report's fifth recommendation, everyone agrees on getting rid of plastics. No one disagrees. All we are saying is that we cannot ban PLU stickers, the small labels placed on fruit, with a snap of our fingers.

Science has begun to develop biodegradable labels. They exist. They are coming, but they are very expensive and are not widely available yet. We may lose suppliers based in foreign countries. They may stop providing us with bananas, for example, because the cost will become too high too quickly. Yes, let us make these changes, but let us be reasonable about the deadlines and then see what the alternatives are.

Plastic packaging for vegetables is probably the best example that I can give. Broccoli wrapped in plastic will last two, three or four times longer in the grocery store than broccoli that is not wrapped in plastic. Everyone agrees that we want to get rid of the plastic, but first we need to develop an alternative solution. Otherwise, we will put broccoli on the shelves and food waste will skyrocket. What is a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions? Food waste. I am talking about thinking things through. That is how we usually work at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

We talked about the nutrition north Canada program. The government provides subsidies to companies that supply food to remote areas. However, we are not sure that those subsidies are being put to good use. We put the message out there because food prices are atrocious in remote areas. It is crazy.

Should the formula be reviewed? Should the government support citizens directly instead? It is unclear whether that is a good idea, but we should look into how these subsidies are being used. Our job is not to increase a private company's profits. Our job is to ensure that citizens have access to affordable food.

To conclude, one of the major recommendations is the grocery code of conduct. It is an excellent example of what happens when we work constructively. The committee worked on this for a very long time. We put a lot of pressure on the companies. Two of them did not want to sign, but they finally did this summer. The code of conduct will be implemented. Now it will be important to monitor how it is being applied. The most important element is the dispute resolution mechanism for small suppliers.

I would now be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

Electoral Participation Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not enough to bring down a government.

I would tell my colleague that I hope to get Bill C-282 passed for our farmers before triggering an election. This bill is now in the Senate and is being held up by Conservative and Liberal senators, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously in the House. I hope my colleague feels the same way I do.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I will now turn to supply management.

Dairy Farmers of Canada stated on May 30 that they were concerned that even though CUSMA's second dispute settlement panel ruled entirely in Canada's favour on dairy tariff rate quotas, the U.S. could use the review mechanism in this agreement to try to get what it couldn't get through the complaint process.

Other supply-managed producers have also reached out to us with similar concerns. Their fears are justified, particularly because Donald Trump may get re-elected, and he has clearly stated publicly that if he does, he will attack the supply management system.

Do you feel that Bill C‑282, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois and seeks to protect supply management, must be passed as quickly as possible?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I agree with you. In fact, I recall the committee work during that discussion of Bill C-282.

Mr. Lemaire, on the same line of questions, what are your thoughts?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses.

Mr. Harvey, I jumped a little when you said that the House hadn't thoroughly studied Bill C-282. First of all, you have every right to come and tell us that you oppose the bill, that it's not a good idea and that the Senate should reject it. There's nothing wrong with that. That's why we're here.

On the other hand, it can't be said that we haven't done a thorough job. We undertook it twice: once during the last parliament and once during this one. Both times, I was one of the two critics in favour of the bill, and we even went on a fact-finding tour around Quebec on the subject.

The latest process, which went further than the previous one, was perfectly normal. First, the bill was introduced at first reading. Then it was debated and passed at second reading. Then it was referred to committee, where we carried out a study over an appropriate number of meetings. We heard from experts and interest groups, some in favour of the bill, others opposed. We heard all possible arguments. We weighed them, then reported the bill back to the House, where it passed on third reading and was sent to the Senate, where it is currently under consideration.

In my opinion, that was a good thing, but not in yours. That's fine, that's part of democracy. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been a thorough review. Of course, you may find that this process is insufficient, but if that's the case, your criticism applies to the process in general because it's the same for all bills. Otherwise, I invite you to consider your words carefully before you speak.

Now, I'd like to ask Mr. Volpe a question.

In January 2023, following a complaint from Mexico and Canada, a panel ruled in our favour concerning a difference in interpretation of U.S. requirements for calculating the regional value content of certain products. The dispute concerned a technical provision of the trade agreement requiring that, by 2025, 75% of automotive parts known as “essential parts” must be manufactured on U.S. soil to qualify for duty-free treatment.

In your opinion, what irritants are still present and could be discussed or even resolved during the CUSMA review?

[Michael Harvey]

Sure.

CAFTA's priorities are as follows: Number one is to open new markets for Canadian agri-food, number two is to uphold the international rules-based trading system and number three is to strengthen trade diplomacy capacity and industry/government collaboration.

The United States is Canada's largest agricultural trading partner by far, buying 59.2% of Canadian exports and supplying 57% of Canadian imports. Canada is the leading agricultural trade partner of the United States when exports and imports are combined.

Canada ranks among Mexico's leading agri-food suppliers. Mexican agri-food imports from Canada reached $2.9 billion in 2022. Mexico's large population, growing middle class, geographic proximity and political stability make it an important market for CAFTA exporters.

The deep integration between the Canadian and U.S. agricultural sectors is largely a question of proximity, but trade agreements and a deep, positive relationship with our American friends and allies are also vital. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989, followed by NAFTA in 1994 and then CUSMA in 2020, have dismantled most tariff and quota barriers to Canada-U.S. agricultural trade.

I want to underline that for Canada-U.S. agri-food trade, CUSMA benefits trade investment for both countries through highly integrated supply chains. This includes intra-industry trade for important sectors, with each country exporting products to the other within these sectors. Pork and beef are important examples, as well as grains and feeds. Bilateral trade also covers many semi-processed and finished processed products such as sugar-containing ingredients and food products.

Our supply chains are so deeply integrated that in essence our countries are producing together, making technological advances together and using an integrated transportation system. These are important elements to emphasize when interacting with U.S. counterparts. Napoleon famously said that geography is destiny. This is clearly true for Canada's international trading relationships. Nothing is more important than our relationship with the United States. CAFTA is a strong supporter of diversification of our trading relationships, but the U.S. will always be the most important. In an increasingly uncertain international environment, neighbours and partners like the U.S. and Mexico must be carefully nurtured.

Our security relationship, border management and the management of key trade infrastructure cannot be separated from the trading relationship. As a country, we must manage North American relations holistically. CAFTA members can play a useful role in the team Canada approach by working with our U.S. counterparts to underline the importance of CUSMA to them. U.S. farmers and producers are politically relevant, including in key swing states.

Finally, I wish to emphasize the need to avoid unnecessarily provoking U.S. trade negotiators. CAFTA firmly believes that Bill C-282, which would prevent Canadian negotiators from discussing tariff quotas in supply-managed industries, is sending a warning signal to U.S. interest groups in key states. We call on the Senate to reject Bill C‑282, which has not been thoroughly studied in the House of Commons.

I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.