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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns regarding the budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1. This type of bill obviously concerns me as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I will explain why.

First of all, I find it hard to understand why such a fundamental segment of our society, the people who built our identity and to whom we owe so much, is once again being ignored in the measures announced in this 430-page tome. The government has thought of amending 59 laws, as well as tax regulations, and yet it has not provided anything for seniors, who are increasingly marginalized. This is totally unacceptable. It is crucial that budget bills be carefully scrutinized and that citizens be given the opportunity to voice their concerns, which does not appear to be happening. How else can we explain that the government has completely ignored seniors?

With that in mind, let me explore some of the issues that many of us have raised and that motivate our party to vote against Bill C-47.

This is not the first time that changes have been made here by the Liberal government through this process, but there is something pernicious about going about it this way. First, where is the transparency? Where is the predictability that people so desperately need to make decisions that affect their lives? It is simple. There is nothing in the bill for seniors, housing, long-term support or health care funding. That much people understand.

The bill also creates infrastructure for agencies that are not accountable to Parliament to manage the billions of dollars the government intends to invest in the green economic transition. No one can make me believe that there are not people who will just smell the money and not really care where that money goes.

I did manage to find some measures that are of particular interest to me, and I want to highlight them. After talking repeatedly about farm succession and the plight of our agricultural producers, one measure is worth mentioning, namely removing the uncertainty surrounding the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfer of small businesses. This is a decades-long battle that I was part of and that many other colleagues, long before me or with me, were able to fight.

The text of the bill deals with a variety of issues related to agriculture in Canada, and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak to the nuances that the government must consider if it wants to serve the interests of many ridings, including my own.

Nearly 50% of the land in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is undervalued. We still have a long way to go to ensure that our agricultural land is valued and used to feed the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebeckers, Canadians and others. We must first ensure that we work on classifying agricultural land through a fund dedicated to the safeguarding of agricultural land. Such funding would allow Quebec and its municipalities to begin this important, or even critical, process.

Then, to encourage recultivation, subsidies comparable to those offered for reforestation must be introduced. This funding would allow our grain producers to increase their production, for example, and would allow our cattle producers to create new pastures for raising their livestock. Above all, these subsidies would be a more important lever for our young farmers by making it easier for them to access land. With this simple measure, our farmers would be able to put more of their products on the tables of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec, Canada and the rest of the world, in addition to ensuring the sustainability of our villages and our rural communities as well as real and sustainable land use.

It is also important that the program to plant two billion trees be amended to exclude devalued agricultural land from the areas that are targeted by the program for tree planting. In my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the people who cleared that land are often still alive.

The government also announced $333 million dollars over 10 years for the dairy innovation and investment fund to help producers reduce the amount of solids non-fat that is sold for animal feed or disposed of and to increase their revenues.

The Bloc Québécois welcomes that compensation but strongly maintains that no amount can compensate for the breakdown of the supply management system and that the government should pass Bill C-282 to protect the system during future negotiations. In that regard, I want to thank most of my colleagues for supporting this bill.

With regard to the higher prices for nitrogen fertilizers because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the government is currently proposing to add $34.1 million over three years to the on-farm climate action fund to support the adoption of nitrogen management practices by eastern Canadian farmers. The Bloc Québécois finds this measure to be ineffective and even ridiculous and believes that the government should not be proposing such measures while imposing a 35% tax on fertilizer. Furthermore, it is important that the government make cash available to our farmers. Almost a year ago, I gave a speech calling on the government to set up an emergency account, similar to the one we had during the pandemic, to help our farmers, who have likely been the hardest hit by input and fuel costs.

According to a study by the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, farmers are in such dire straits that one farm in 10 could go out of business within 12 months. That is serious. UPA's president for my region was quoted in the newspaper Les Affaires. I recommend that my colleagues read the article. It said that the increase in interest rates and in the cost of gas, inputs and fertilizer are taking a toll on farms' profit margins, which are already very narrow and, in some cases, non-existent. Furthermore, higher insurance premiums and stricter requirements imposed by insurance companies, which want changes made in very short time frames, are resulting in significant costs. For that reason, the government must create an emergency business account for our farmers.

I do want to point out that the budget does increase the interest-free portion of loans granted under the advance payments program from $250,000 to $300,000. However, once again, the government is focusing on producers' debt rather than their cash flow or the possibility of providing additional income.

There are measures for mining. One of the interesting measures in the budget is the tax credit for the development, extraction and recycling of critical and strategic minerals. The problem is that there is no mention of it in Bill C‑47, the first budget implementation bill. Is this going to be a repeat of what happened with the mineral exploration credits? As far as I know, none of the measures presented in last year's budget were implemented. The money for mineral exploration is therefore impossible to access. Is the same thing going to happen when it comes to applying these credits for businesses that recycle minerals, for example?

Abitibi—Témiscamingue is home to the only copper smelter in Canada. The smelter is working to reduce its greenhouse gas and arsenic emissions, and the new 30% tax credit could help it speed up its work. Furthermore, I know from my study at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we need to figure out how to boost metal recycling in Quebec and Canada, given that only 10% of the electronic devices recycled in Rouyn‑Noranda come from Canada.

In addition, our region currently has the only active lithium mine in Canada, in La Corne. Sayona Mining is an important player for the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region, and its willingness to process the resource close to the source is noteworthy.

Although the government is providing additional funding to the critical minerals centre of excellence, I still believe that it is essential that this centre have a presence in the mining regions. It needs to forge strong ties with our universities, such as the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témicamingue, and our colleges, such as the Industrial Waste Technology Centre, or CTRI, and the Cégep de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, especially considering the Abitibi-Témiscamingue mining innovation zone project that is being developed in our region.

This mining innovation zone project could play a cutting-edge role in the mining industry in Quebec and Canada. It is immensely important in the sector, which is located near very large Canadian mines such as Agnico Eagle.

When representatives of Glencore appeared before the committee, they also mentioned this point and how important it is to the Quebec, Canadian and global mining ecosystem. The entire battery industry would benefit from having part of the critical minerals centre of excellence in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Finally, the budget mentions the government's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples by providing $4 billion over seven years for urban, rural and northern housing. I welcome this. However, there is no new funding for on-reserve housing despite the urgent need. Once again, in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, housing is a very important issue.

We have had a housing shortage for quite some time. Even before the pandemic, we were having difficulty building enough housing to meet demand. Rising interest rates are hurting construction and hampering our economic development. It is increasingly difficult to attract workers. I really do not want to see my region become a fly-in, fly-out community.

In closing, where is the money for housing in this budget? It is likely in the same place as the money for the most vulnerable seniors aged 65 and over, which is to say, nowhere.

Supply Management

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember last February 8 when all the parties voted in favour of including supply management protection in international agreements. All the parties voted for Bill C‑282. I know that some people remember that. Maybe it is time that the political parties remembered too. At this time, in committee, the Conservatives are filibustering to block Bill C-282. They keep stalling, slowing down procedures and generally wasting time. They are doing everything they possibly can to undermine a bill they actually voted for.

It is such a sad spectacle, when the very future of Quebec agriculture hangs in the balance.

I am calling on all Quebec members from every party. All of the parties promised to protect supply management and voted in favour of this vital bill. My Quebec colleagues, Conservatives and Liberals alike, all gave farmers their word. I can assure them that our farmers remember. Today, the time has come for them to honour their word.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has a keen interest in agricultural issues. I have a technical question for her.

We are currently working on Bill C-282 in committee. This is a bill that was overwhelmingly supported by the Conservatives. Now we are witnessing a filibuster. I would like her opinion on that.

Does she think it is okay to filibuster? If the Conservatives are now against the bill, should they not just vote against it and own that position rather than blocking House proceedings?

International Trade

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, building on my friend's intervention, I will take the occasion today to wish all Ismaili Canadians a very happy Navroz Mubarak, the start of the new year and the first day of spring.

I appreciate the speech given by my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on International Trade with me and who, as I mentioned, was with me in Paris.

First, I want to point out that the only difference between Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑282 from the Bloc Québécois is their place on the Order Paper. There is a chronological order to be followed.

Next, I agree entirely that the regulations, directives and strategies established by the House and the government must apply to every company and every institution, particularly Export Development Canada.

I would like to ask a question about something that was raised in Canada's strategy for responsible business conduct abroad. I am quoting from the document:

The July 2020 amendment to the Customs Tariff prohibits the importation of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced labour.... Furthermore, the government is committed to enacting legislation to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and ensure that Canadian businesses operating abroad do not contribute to human rights abuses.

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

Madam Speaker, Nicolas de Condorcet used to say that the truth belongs to those who seek it, not to those who claim to own it.

With that in mind, I welcome this motion, and I voted in favour of it when my Conservative colleague moved it in committee. For me, it is a step in the right direction, the beginning of something, a project. I am really glad the Conservatives have moved this motion. The last time I moved a motion to bring in a real due diligence policy seeking to pass it by unanimous consent, I heard a lot of howling from the opposition on my right. I use the word “right” in every sense of the word. I am glad the Conservatives finally woke up a bit, although it took a while.

I also moved a motion on mining companies. The Standing Committee on International Trade has completed its study on mining, but we have not yet adopted the report. We have not yet heard from the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. When I moved my motion on the subject of mining, the Conservatives also opposed it, so I am pleased that they have come to their senses. It is better late than never, as they say.

I also want to thank the previous speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development. Recently, I was fortunate enough to go to Paris with him for the OECD summit, which focused on this particular issue. I am glad to see that the OECD and most countries are becoming aware of the problem. Unfortunately, this meeting turned into a bit of an exercise in one-upmanship. Everyone said they were taking this issue seriously and working hard in their communities to advance this cause. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, as the expression goes.

This is a topic that resonates with me because I also tabled a petition in the House last spring, I believe, or early last summer, to bring in a meaningful due diligence policy. I have also co-sponsored bills. Bloc members never judge a bill by its cover. When a bill is good, we support it; when it is bad, we do not support it.

I have co-sponsored two NDP bills. The first is Bill C-262, which has yet to move past first reading. If we are serious about this issue, we need to get on it, we need to make this a priority. The second is Bill C-263, which seeks to establish an office of the commissioner in this matter because an office like that could act as an authority.

Let us take a step back in history. Once upon a time, there was colonization. We call many countries “developing” nations nowadays. They are southern nations, based on the old north-south divide. There used to be something called colonization. Colonial empires, or metropolises as they were called, wanted to get their hands on resources, so they went and took over other lands. They did not all go about it the same way. Some felt that the people on those lands, whom they considered inferior, needed to be civilized. Others took things even further: those people had to be exterminated, unfortunately.

For others still, colonization meant stripping these people of all power and reducing them to insignificance for as long as they did business with them. This was often the British colonization model. The people no longer had any political power, but the colonial powers would pretend that they did. They let them elect leaders with little power, local leaders from their own tribes. This gave them the illusion that they still had power over their lives, which was a complete lie. It was called indirect rule. Then decolonization happened, as we know.

Next came globalization. Starting in the 1980s, we were told that we needed to free up the multinationals and free up capital to ensure that it could be moved from one place to another, without borders, so that profits could be made, because all those profits would contribute to the common good. That was a very bad interpretation of the words of Adam Smith, who is credited with introducing the “invisible hand” theory. In reality, Adam Smith never came up with an invisible hand theory. The invisible hand is metaphor that he used three times to talk about different things. If we look at Adam Smith's work, we see that what he actually said is quite the opposite of what people took from his words in the 1980s and 1990s.

When the Berlin Wall fell, the Iron Curtain also fell. It imploded, collapsed. That led to the rule of unadulterated neo-liberalism. All of the supranational bodies were saying that the time for nations and sovereignties was over, that it was the end for the social safety net. The time for measures and policies was over. Now was the time for capital to be deployed, for it to move from one jurisdiction to another by any means and at any time. It needed to be freed up as much as possible so that anything could be done with it.

Obviously, today, that is no longer the case. We might say that globalization is in crisis, that we are returning to a multipolar world. It appears that there are several environmental and social consequences to these utopias. Among them, there is this idea of having a great global supply chain where every country can do its part. This also has consequences.

Quebec has fared well under free trade. It has been a beneficial experience. We certainly need to continue to diversify our trade partners, but not at all costs. We have seen the human consequences in terms of human rights, obviously, but also the use of forced labour. That is the point of today's motion on the importation of goods linked to the use of forced labour.

If we are going to address the problem, then we need to be serious. With what is referred to as dumping, a product can go through another country that is used as a flag of convenience. Then the product arrives here and we think it was made in places where forced labour is controlled and regulated, when in fact that is often not the case.

The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, the CNCA, has made a number of demands. I am going to read them, because I think they are quite comprehensive. According to the CNCA, there are five essential elements in effective due diligence legislation which many Canadian and Quebec civil society groups agree on, and they are the following: require companies to prevent all human rights violations throughout their global operations and supply chains; require companies to develop and implement human rights due diligence procedures, and report on them, as well as require them to consult rights holders; require meaningful consequences for companies that fail to take these obligations seriously and guarantee impacted communities access to effective remedy in Canadians civil courts; be consistent with the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights and apply this legislation to companies of any size, while possibly allowing small business in low-risk sectors to be exempt; and apply to all human rights, because all human rights are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

On June 22, 2022, I tabled a petition along those same lines:

Whereas:

some Canadian companies contribute to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world;

people who protest these abuses and stand up for their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed. Indigenous peoples, women and marginalized groups are particularly at risk; and

Canada encourages companies to stop these harms from happening in their global operations and supply chains, but does not require them to.

We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call on the House of Commons to adopt legislation on due diligence for human and environmental rights that:

would require....

The rest of the petition contains more or less the same formal demands made by the CNCA which I just read. It also aligns with the motion I moved for unanimous consent, which, I would remind members, was rejected by the right in the House.

Let us now discuss the bill in question. I applaud the sponsor, who has attempted previously to bring forward legislation on this matter. There was Bill C‑243, which was withdrawn in favour of the very similar Bill S‑211.

We supported it and we will continue to support it, but it is just not enough, because if we ask ourselves whether the bill helps individuals who are affected obtain justice or redress, the answer is no. Does the bill seek to include communities and workers who are affected? No. Does the bill apply to businesses of all sizes in all sectors? No, it only applies to businesses with over 250 employees and “significant” revenue and assets.

Does the bill apply to all human rights? No, it only applies to forced labour and child labour. Those are hugely important issues, and this is a step forward, but it should go much further. Are businesses required to respect human rights? No, they are only required to report annually on whether they have taken steps to recognize and prevent the use of forced labour, but reporting is not accountability.

Does the bill require businesses to prevent harm? No, it only requires an annual report. Does the bill require businesses to take steps to identify, mitigate, prevent or report human rights violations and environmental damage in their supply chains, because the problem applies to the entire supply chain? No.

There are no compulsory due diligence standards for businesses. Do they face significant consequences if they cause harm or fail to implement due diligence standards? Again, the answer is no.

All the questions I just asked would be answered in the affirmative under the NDP Bill C-282, which I co-sponsored. This bill ticks all the boxes. I therefore encourage the government and the House to refer it to committee for study as soon as possible, because it provides a much better response to what is needed and to the urgency of the situation.

I would also like to talk about Canadian mining companies, which I suggested would be a good subject for study by the Standing Committee on International Trade. First, let me clarify one thing. It is a real stretch to call them “Canadian” mining companies, because they are just using Canada as a “flag of convenience”. Mining companies are often Canadian only on paper. They choose Canada because its lax laws make it ridiculously easy to incorporate here, to present themselves as Canadian companies and to benefit from speculative benefits offered through and by the Toronto Stock Exchange. Canada is just being used as a “flag of convenience”. It is basically a front.

I have seen this first-hand. The Bloc Québécois actually proposed a bill in 2009 that would have gotten to the heart of the issue, as it created an actual review commission that would have been politically independent and would have had the power to conduct its own investigations, without needing a complaint or a political directive. It would not simply have been a symbolic ombudsperson. This commission could have conducted its own investigations and publicly questioned Global Affairs Canada, or Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, as it was called at the time, if the department were even seen to support a mining company that was caught violating human rights.

I travelled to Chile and Colombia, and in Colombia, I saw a mining company that was originally Canadian fall into Chinese hands. Speaking of forced labour, we saw a bus full of prisoners arrive from the People's Republic of China. Once the local miners have been squeezed out, one of the arguments often used to gain acceptance for these projects in mining areas is that they will create jobs. However, bringing in prisoners from the People's Republic of China is not exactly creating local jobs. Furthermore, diplomats must not provide unequivocal support for the aggressive tactics used by Canadian mining companies abroad, as Canadian embassies have been known to do. Embassies are being ordered to provide support through diplomacy.

We also need to talk about money. It is important to talk about that, because Export Development Canada has investments in many problematic companies, including Baru Gold, which was mentioned several times. EDC continued to hand out loans to Teck Resources for its Quebrada Blanca mine in Chile, despite the political crisis and brutal repression going on in that country. In 2019 alone, EDC invested between $1 billion and $1.5 billion just in Chile's extractive sector.

Vale was involved in two recent tailings dam disasters in Brazil. At the company's Brumadinho mine, hundreds of people were killed in January 2019 when a tailings dam collapsed. It is also the co-owner of the mine near Mariana, where a similar disaster wiped out an entire village in 2015. Both mines had been built using the riskiest method regulators would allow. Vale's other activities include a railway along which residents are regularly struck by trains, and a mine that was ordered to shut down several times because of the impact it was having on indigenous tribes.

Vedanta Limited, a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, received between $100 million and $250 million in loans in 2017. In 2018, there was a massacre at a smelter plant in India run by a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources. Police opened fire on a crowd of thousands who were protesting the planned expansion of the Tuticorin plant. Thirteen people were killed and dozens of others were injured.

According to Emily Dwyer from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, who testified at committee, some of the other mining companies that received funding from Export Development Canada and were mixed up in human rights violations include Teck Resources and Kinross.

The mining industry in Canada received $6.524 million in funding in 2022. This is a serious matter.

When we talk about accountability and the origin of goods, we need to be serious and take a closer look.

I will now wrap up my speech in order to debate this issue with the rest of the House. We need some genuinely serious policies on this, such as Bill C‑262 and Bill C‑263, which I co-sponsored, and the bill that the Bloc Québécois introduced in 2009 about a review commission for mining companies.

This needs to be taken seriously, because the ombudsperson is currently nothing but a complaints office and a web site. That is no way to deal with the serious, violent, brutal violations happening around the world.

In closing, I want to wish everyone a happy end to the “no new clothes challenge”. March was dubbed “no new clothes” month. That lines up nicely with the theme we are discussing today.

Supply Management

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

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the Bloc Québécois travelled throughout Quebec to promote its Bill C-282, which seeks to protect supply-managed agricultural sectors by preventing future international agreements from having a negative impact on our farmers' share of the market and the income they earn from all of their hard work.

Supply management is a critical component of our regions' economies and helps feed families in Quebec and Canada. It must be protected.

Again today, many stakeholders from the agricultural community have come to Parliament Hill to show their staunch support for this bill. I want to recognize them and tell them how much I respect them.

I thank them for their work and especially for being here to remind parliamentarians of the importance of supporting this bill, which will help maintain our very effective and resilient agricultural model.

The message is clear. Parliamentarian friends, let us unite and pass Bill C-282 together.

Global Food Insecurity

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

Madam Chair, the “sundae with the cherry on top” would love to answer that question. I will not address the other things my colleague said because it could become a bit of a slippery slope.

She asked me to talk about our success stories. Every chance I get, I talk about supply management. A great example is the COVID-19 crisis. Some milk was thrown away at first, but that was a very temporary situation. Farmers adjusted very quickly. They had much less difficulty than other producers, overall, because the quantity and the price are controlled. That is how you control quality.

However, in order to succeed and continue to manage this system, we have to continue to control imports. If too many foreign products start coming into the country, if our local farmers decide to reduce the quantity they produce, if products continue to come in by the truckload from abroad, the system will no longer work.

As for not repeating the mistakes of the past, we should never again give away a single share of the supply management market. We should promote it abroad, especially in African countries, where I think it would work really well. We should protect it with the Bill C-282, a fine bill. Do not forget the number, it is going to make an impact.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his statement. I respect him and I have had the opportunity to work with him several times.

I agree with several aspects of his speech, with some reservations, which the future groom opposite may share. Generally, he is right in saying that we must protect our sectors that are doing well and help our farmers rather than hinder them.

Speaking of protecting sectors that are doing well, I have one that is very important to me. Last week, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-282 to protect the supply management system, which works extremely well, but has been undermined by recent concessions. Does my colleague believe that we should protect this system for years to come?