Bill C-282

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

International Trade

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

Will the government condemn that sorry spectacle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Trade

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 43

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Trade

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

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

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

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

International Trade

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, their excuse is that senators are independent, but the Prime Minister is the one who appointed them, including the two who are sabotaging Bill C-282. One of the two even used to advise the Prime Minister. What is more, the two even argue over which of them will get to sponsor government bills. I would hardly call that independent.

Let us be serious. The Prime Minister can and must demand that the Senate pass Bill C‑282 as it was passed here in the House. We are talking about the future of supply management. That is serious. Will all the party leaders in the House demand that senators vote against this amendment?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are asking senators to support Bill C‑282 in its original form because we believe in supply management and our Canadian dairy farmers, poultry farmers and other farmers, to ensure their economic well-being.

We agree with the Bloc Québécois and we are asking the Senate to pass this bill in its original form.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the coming hours will be critical for our agriculture sector. Senators Peter Boehm and Peter Harder have literally sabotaged Bill C‑282. They amended it to prevent supply management from being protected in existing trade agreements.

Just think. Donald Trump wants to reopen the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and these two guys want to serve him up supply management on a silver platter.

The Senate could vote on this amendment as early as tomorrow, so every party leader must speak out, starting with the Prime Minister. Will he ask the two senators to reject the amendment and save supply management?

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party and our federal government have always supported supply management. It was our party that created supply management over 50 years ago, and our party will always support it.

The leader of the Conservative Party has not had much to say on this issue. This is because his caucus is divided. It was divided during the last vote here in the House. In contrast, our party unanimously supports Bill C-282, and we expect the other place to pass it.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, they are so independent that it was this Prime Minister who appointed them and, apparently, they are all good buddies. These two unelected individuals, Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, are working against the interests of our farmers. They are working against the will of elected officials from all parties who supported Bill C-282. They are working against our constituents. They are working against our democracy. The one person they are working for is Donald Trump. They are assuring Trump that he will still be able to demand concessions on supply management in the upcoming CUSMA negotiations.

What do we call two people who are working against their country's democracy, against their country's interests, and in favour of the interests of another country?

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

Madam Speaker, on October 29, the Bloc Québécois pulled the plug on our farmers. The leader of the Bloc Québécois decided that he wants an election more than he wants to ensure that Bill C‑282 passes in the other chamber. That is the reality.

On this side of the House, we call the Senate every day. I encourage the Bloc Québécois to do the same. I know that some Bloc Québécois members are making calls, but I encourage all Bloc Québécois members and the Bloc Québécois leader to call the other chamber as well. It is an independent chamber, and I encourage the Conservative Party to do likewise, because I am not hearing much from the Conservative Party.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, senators Peter Boehm and Peter Harder just stabbed our farmers in the back. They just amended Bill C‑282 to prevent it from protecting supply management in trade renegotiations. At the very moment that Donald Trump is saying that he wants to renegotiate CUSMA, these two senators are guaranteeing that supply management will be back on the table.

The Prime Minister appointed these two senators, his two buddies, and he is responsible for them. Will he personally ask the Senate to defeat their amendment?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, senators Peter Harder and Peter Boehm confirm that the one thing they have wanted from the start is to kill Bill C‑282. Their amendment practically guarantees that supply management will be sacrificed again during the renegotiation of CUSMA with Donald Trump. They are attacking the votes of every party in the House. They are attacking 6,000 Quebec companies. They are attacking 100,000 Quebec workers. They are attacking our regions. They are ruining our producers and weakening our agricultural model.

I am addressing the government House leader, but this goes for all the parties here.

Is she going to ask senators to vote against this outright sabotage?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Bloc Québécois. Bill C‑282, which protects supply management, is important. I am disappointed in the committee of senators who voted against this bill and made this amendment.

I would ask senators to respect the will of the House. I am asking all senators to vote against this amendment and support our farmers, who feed Canadians and contribute so much to our economy.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the thing farmers were afraid of happened in the Senate.

Senator Peter Harder introduced an amendment to Bill C‑282 that prevents it from protecting supply management. Mr. Harder's amendment invalidates the bill as far as future renegotiations of existing agreements are concerned. In other words, the Senate is giving Donald Trump carte blanche to attack supply management during the next round of CUSMA talks in 2026.

Peter Harder and Peter Boehm are not working for farmers; they are working for Donald Trump.

Will the leader of the government ask senators to defeat this toxic amendment?

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

Mr. Speaker, even the Leader of the Opposition is worried about the economic policies of the U.S. president-elect, who is actually one of his role models. Clearly, there is a problem.

I want to talk about trade. There are problems when it comes to supply management, aluminum and wood. Let us focus on supply management.

Is it not high time to protect supply management by passing Bill C-282? Is it not high time for him to pick up the phone and call his senators to get this bill sent back?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that if Bill C-282 is not passed, the Americans could put supply management back on the table as early as 2026.

He also knows that he is not going to be the one at the negotiating table. It will be the Conservative leader. If the Prime Minister does not get Bill C‑282 passed before any future negotiations take place, he is leaving our agricultural industry in the hands of the Conservatives, the same Conservatives who made concessions on supply management in the agreements with Europe and Asia.

Will the Prime Minister intervene or has he already “quiet quit”?

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

Mr. Speaker, in tonight's U.S. presidential election, Americans are going to choose the person who will be able to reopen CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, as early as 2026. Our most important free trade agreement could come up for renegotiation. Donald Trump has promised to do as much, and Kamala Harris voted against CUSMA.

That is why it is dangerous to let senators Peter Boehm and Peter Harder block Bill C‑282. They want to override a vote held by elected members and put supply management back on the negotiating table for 2026. The Prime Minister is the one who appointed these public menaces.

Is he going to ask them to pass Bill C‑282 before any renegotiation takes place?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the next president of the United States can reopen CUSMA as early as 2026. On the one hand, we have Trump, who wants to eliminate our supply management system altogether. On the other, we have Kamala Harris, whose running mate is the Governor of Wisconsin, a state that will benefit hugely if our supply management system is weakened. Caught in the middle are Quebec farmers, who are appalled that the will of the elected members of the House of Commons is being thwarted by two unelected senators. That is undemocratic. It is shocking and it is dangerous.

Will the Prime Minister finally ask Peter Boehm and Peter Harder to pass Bill C-282?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the American election, we must stop Senators Peter Boehm and Peter Harder from blocking Bill C-282. They want to prevent us from protecting supply management in free trade agreements, when we know that the U.S. can reopen CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, as early as 2026. The fact that these two senators are blocking this bill is not just undemocratic and harmful, it is also dangerous. It is dangerous because it is jeopardizing 6,000 businesses and 100,000 jobs in Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister finally ask them to stop threatening Quebec farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague I am well aware of the importance of the supply management program. I milked cows for half of my life. I am well aware what supply management means to the agricultural sector and to this country. I can assure my hon. colleague we will continue to support supply management, and we will continue to push the Senate to pass Bill C-282.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after 500 days of filibustering, we have to wonder whether Peter Boehm and Peter Harder are part of a Liberal anti-supply-management movement, along with John Manley.

Comparing our farmers to the deadliest lobby in the United States is insulting. Comparing the protection of our human-scale agriculture sector to totalitarianism is outrageous beyond words. All of this comes from a key figure in the government of Jean Chrétien, who arguably had quite an influence on the Liberal Party.

Will the Liberals unequivocally condemn John Manley's comments and call on the Senate to pass Bill C‑282?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is fully aware that just over 50 years ago, the Liberal government established the supply management program. My hon. colleague is well aware that over the last 50 years, we have fully supported the supply management program. We have supported and will continue to support the supply management program, and push our colleagues in the other place to pass Bill C-282.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will mark 500 days since the House adopted Bill C‑282, which seeks to protect supply management in trade agreements. People are wondering why two Liberal-appointed senators, Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, are filibustering so hard.

We may have gotten a clue yesterday, when former Liberal minister John Manley, a prominent member of Jean Chrétien's government, compared our farmers to the NRA gun lobby. He said that we should ignore them and that passing Bill C‑282 would turn Canada into North Korea.

Did he basically say aloud what the Liberals are thinking?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, Halloween is a great opportunity to rise in the House and tell scary stories about the Liberals and all their close friends who have been collecting candy since 2015. Trust me, there are a lot of them.

Over the past nine years, we have dug many skeletons out of Liberal closets and gone on witch hunts to unmask all the Liberal “ghouls”. From the sponsorship scandal to the green fund scandal we are talking about today, it all comes back to the man behind the mask, the Liberal Prime Minister.

It is always a privilege for me to stand in the House and proudly represent the interests of the people of Lévis—Lotbinière, no matter what their needs are, and to do justice to the hard-working Canadians of this country. They do not deserve to have their hard-earned money used for partisan purposes or used to grease the palms of some Liberal Party of Canada donors, as we have all too often caught it doing. Let us not forget all those who have been granted privileged access to ministers to talk about their projects. All too often, those projects have served only to line their own pockets, to the detriment of citizens and the future of our country.

This intervention on the privilege motion concerns the green fund scandal. The crux of the problem has not changed: The Liberal government still refuses to send unredacted documents to the police so that they can do their job and determine the scope of the corruption observed in this matter by the Auditor General. What saddens me so deeply about all of this is that, once again, Liberal Party members and the Prime Minister are dashing the dreams, trust, respect and hopes of Canadians.

Let me review the facts. The Auditor General identified irregularities in the procedure used to allocate money to businesses through the green fund, which was intended to help businesses develop solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We in the Conservative Party believe that technology is the best way to reduce our environmental footprint. Technology offers Canada a pathway forward into the future, unlike the punitive anti-economic measures, like the carbon tax, that are being implemented on the backs of Canadian workers and families.

However, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, funnelled much of its funding to companies owned by the members of its board of directors, who were also long-time Liberal insiders. The selection process was rigorous and merit-based, but it was overridden and used in an arbitrary way in order to favour Liberal cronies. So much for fairness, because with the Liberals, friends come first.

In fact, it is the profusion of arbitrary actions taken by this Liberal government that is undermining public trust in this government. This includes gifts to certain corporations over others, favouritism, punitive taxes imposed on certain sectors and the capital gains tax, which creates tax bias. Those are all the ingredients of the Liberal magic potion. If the price of a photo-op government were just a bit of fun now and then, we could live with that. Like any good masquerade ball, it always comes to an end and the secrecy ends with it.

The bill for the Liberals' systematic incompetence has led to the worst consequences in the history of our country, which is practically unrecognizable because it has changed so much in the past nine years. Right now, more than two million people are lining up at food banks because of failed Liberal policies. That is a record number in our country's history. That is a 90% increase from 2019. As former finance minister Bill Morneau said in his memoirs, the Prime Minister tosses aside good public policy in favour of scoring political points.

His golden image is now tarnished in the eyes of his own troops, and many are asking the same question: Is he standing up for Canadians or for himself? As a legislator since 2006, I can say that if he were really standing up for the interests of Canadians, he would call an election, not refuse to comply with the order of the House and to hand over the green fund documents to the appropriate authorities. This is the cause of our current state of paralysis, which is justified and perfectly legitimate.

Like many sneaks, our Bloc friends were once again left high and dry. They are playing the victim card, claiming that they want to work for real this time. However, when the time comes to vote on the side of common sense, their opportunism and hypocrisy always get the better of them, because they want to have their cake and eat it too. Ultimately, the “Liberal Bloc” and the “NDP Liberals” are the same. They are shakedown artists. We have the ultimate proof that, even with a minority government in place, a party like the Bloc Québécois is incapable of making gains for Quebeckers and Canadians and carries no weight whatsoever. At most, the Bloc Québécois is good at taking credit for the work and results achieved by others, when in fact they are all talk and no action.

Everywhere in my riding, there is one word on everyone's lips: “election”. When will the election be called? My constituents are fed up with this slapdash Prime Minister. They are telling me they want an election as soon as possible so that this minority government can be held accountable for everything it has done. House prices have more than doubled, and the dream of home ownership is gone for an entire generation. In the Canada I once knew, it was normal for anyone in the country who had a decent salary and a decent job to be able to buy a home and live in dignity. Today, this foundational pillar of our society is in jeopardy because of Liberal mismanagement. The Liberal government broke its promise to build homes to keep pace with the country's demographic growth. The immigration floodgates were opened wide, with no regard for the government's ability to provide services. These crazy policies have undermined the Canadian consensus on immigration. Canadians are the most welcoming people on the planet, but ending common-sense immigration policies like those introduced by the previous Conservative government has led to a few skirmishes in this country. It is so bad that even the Liberals had to reverse their infinitely ideological opposition by announcing earlier this week, to everyone's surprise, that they would be reducing the thresholds by about 20%. Unfortunately, it is probably too little, too late.

I dream of being able to go back to the days of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper's government, in which I had the honour of serving. In those days, the issue of immigration levels was a matter of consensus, not a matter that divides Canadians rather than uniting them. However, it is not too late for the government to do what the Conservatives want and adopt a common-sense measure that ties the number of people entering the country to housing construction. The Conservative Party will develop a mathematical formula to respect this rule, which will enable us to lower prices. This formula will make the number of doctors and jobs grow faster than the population. That is the exact opposite of the out-of-control immigration that has taken place under this Liberal government.

As I read recently in an article by Boucar Diouf in La Presse, “history will unfortunately remember [the reign of Justin Trudeau] as the reign under which intolerance significantly increased in Canada”.

Mr. Diouf adds: “his naive vision of immigration and harmonious co-existence pushed Canada even further toward intolerance”.

The Prime Minister has also had the nerve to attack Quebec even more by making all sort of comments about it since 2015, even though the latest polls show that Quebec is more open to immigration than anywhere else in Canada.

This same Prime Minister forced two women out of his caucus. Although Jody Wilson‑Raybould and Celina Caesar‑Chavannes did not belong to the Conservative party, they were both fine examples of competent and politically courageous people.

In an interview this week, Ms. Caesar‑Chavannes recalled how little consideration the Prime Minister had for his colleagues and how hard he was to work with. She described multiple incidents she had to deal with involving the person she was serving as parliamentary secretary, who tried to influence her to change the date when she would leave caucus, saying that he could not afford to lose two women on the same day. That type of comment proves he cared more about his image than about the people we represent.

The former MP for Whitby also said that while she was meeting with the Prime Minister to try to work out their differences, he approached her with such contempt and hatred that she had never been so scared in her life to be alone in a room with someone. He would later apologize to her in the House of Commons, which she described as cowardice.

I think it is necessary to look back on this kind of incident to see what a phony the Prime Minister is. For weeks now, his refusal to comply with the House's order has gotten us nowhere. It makes me wonder just how much the Prime Minister is trying to hide. I have to wonder how much political pressure MPs must be under to hide certain information and push certain secret agendas, the same way that Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould was pressured in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Considering how many people from his own party have left because of undue pressure, and considering that 24 MPs from his own political party are now calling for his resignation by trying to hold a secret ballot, this Prime Minister's time is clearly up.

The time has come to return to normalcy, both in terms of the transparency that Parliament should show to MPs, but also on the economic front, where powerful paycheques give everyone a chance to live with dignity, without compromising future generations through out-of-control spending that generates insurmountable debt and runaway inflation.

Oddly enough, the Liberals have dug the idea of a high-speed train out of the mothballs in a blatant campaign-style announcement. We will wait and see how much that will cost. It is always strange to see the Liberals pretend they can make everyone's dreams come true as their term winds down. Do they really intend to move forward with this? If they did, I think they would have made it a priority back in 2015, instead of making a last-minute announcement like this, while they are awash in panic and scandals.

It looks like the only ones who still believe in this Liberal government are the NDP. They are like an ex who just cannot let go, even though it is supposed to be over. What is the NDP's problem, anyway? Virtually all Canadians are wondering why the NDP is systematically supporting this dying government. Is it because the NDP leader wants to lock in his pension come February 2025? Is it because the party does not have enough money to run an election campaign? Does it have problems with organizing, volunteers or election sign vendors who want to get paid? It is very hard to know what is going on in the minds of New Democrats right now. One thing we do know is that they are more terrified of an election than they are of Halloween.

Meanwhile, the “Liberal Bloc” had a rude awakening when the deadline for its attempted hostage-taking expired. The Bloc Québécois leader looked like a schoolchild on the Liberals' playground.

The sovereignist party tried to hold a federalist party hostage, and it sure looked silly when its ultimatum did not pan out. The Senate is now under no obligation to move forward and pass Bill C‑282 on supply management.

The Bloc Québécois was so focused on scoring political points that it compromised farmers' legitimate demands. The failed schemes of the leader of the Bloc Québécois show the limitations of that party, which has not been able to accomplish anything significant since its inception.

What did the Bloc Québécois get in return for supporting this government 188 times and preventing it from being defeated? It got absolutely nothing. What is more, the Bloc Québécois's support for more than $500 billion in Liberal government spending shows that it was complicit in leading Canada into its current situation. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has systematically supported Justin Trudeau' measures, which have increased crime and violence—

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, all parties should be outraged by the filibuster in the Senate against Bill C-282 and the protection of supply management. No one here should accept that two senators, two unelected senators, are trying to overturn an all-party majority vote in the House. It is a direct attack on democracy. Peter Boehm and Peter Harder are unelected individuals who are acting like divine right monarchs.

Letting these guys get away with it means turning back the clock on three centuries of democracy. Enough is enough. Will the Prime Minister ask them to pass Bill C‑282 immediately?

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

Those are fine words, Mr. Speaker. Now, not only has he appointed the senators blocking Bill C‑282, but one of them is actually his buddy. Peter Harder brags about it on his Senate page. He says that when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he called the senator several times asking for advice and favours, six months before rewarding him with a seat in the Senate. It was the Prime Minister himself who called him.

If the Prime Minister is able to call him for advice, surely he can call him and tell him to do his job.

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

Mr. Speaker, every party voted to protect supply management with Bill C‑282. Every party has demonstrated with the farmers to call on the Senate to stop blocking the bill. Everyone is urging senators Boehm and Harder to do their job. Now it is time for the Prime Minister to shoulder his responsibility towards our farmers. He is the one who appointed the senators who are blocking the bill and it is his fault that we are stuck with them.

Will he finally ask these two lords to pass Bill C‑282 without delay?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, guess who has not yet said a word about Bill C‑282, which is being blocked by two senators? I am talking about the Prime Minister himself.

He has never asked Peter Boehm or Peter Harder to do their job. He has not said a word. He is too busy pulling all the knives out of his back. Not only is he the one who appointed those two senators, but one of them is even a friend, specifically, Peter Harder, whom he often calls for advice.

Could he pick up the phone now, call his buddy Peter and tell him to do his job?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.

It has been explained several times that we appointed independent senators. They are independent. I know that the Bloc Québécois understands that concept.

Seriously, we have been telling these senators loud and clear that Bill C‑282 was supported by the vast majority of members in the House. We are asking them to move swiftly and send the bill back to us as soon as possible.

The message seems clear to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, Peter Boehm and Peter Harder are two senators who want to undo the elected members' vote on Bill C‑282, which would protect supply management in trade agreements.

These two Liberal appointees say they fear that this will take power away from negotiators. News flash: that is the point. That is the whole point of Bill C‑282. It stops negotiators from sacrificing supply management again, after trading it away in three agreements, including two negotiated under the Liberals, with Europe, Asia and the United States.

The members on this side of the aisle are protecting farmers. The ones on that side are protecting the right to sacrifice them.

Will the Liberals tell their rich little friends to get their priorities straight?

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

Mr. Speaker, farmers from across the country came to Ottawa yesterday to support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑282 on supply management, which is currently stuck in the Senate. All the parties turned out as well to ask two senators, Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, to stop flouting the will of elected members.

Everyone was there except for one person who still has not spoken on the issue. That person is the Prime Minister, the very person who personally appointed the two lords almighty who are blocking everything.

When will the Prime Minister finally ask his two appointees to stop standing in the way of democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, Senator Boehm said he cannot study the supply management bill because, in case people had not noticed, there are a few wars going on. He and Mr. Harder, our two future Nobel Peace Prize winners, are going to start by ending war. Then, if they have any time left, they will use their superior intellect to take a closer look at the supply management bill. Now that is what I call arrogant.

Enough with the nonsense. Will the government call Mr. Harder and Mr. Boehm to order and push Bill C-282 forward immediately?

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

Mr. Speaker, some senators even came here this morning to apologize for the Senate's conduct, and rightly so.

Two senators, Mr. Harder and Mr. Boehm, who were appointed by the Prime Minister—not elected—are undermining the democratic process. These two senators are more easily swayed by the arguments of big lobbyists than by the will of the people's elected representatives. To do nothing is to allow democracy to be flouted.

What does the government intend to do to get Bill C‑282 on supply management, which was passed by a majority vote, out of the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, farmers from all over were in Ottawa this morning. They came from Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, everywhere. They came to show their support for Bill C‑282. Representatives from all parties were there, too: the Greens, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals. Everyone was there to support the Bloc Québécois bill, which has become a bill everyone can get behind.

Everyone, that is, except Mr. Boehm and Mr. Harder, two unelected senators crusading against our farmers.

Who is going to bring them into line?

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

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

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

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

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

When will the Liberals call them to order?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

International Trade

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

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Trade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the government ensure that these two senators respect democracy?

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

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

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

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

Government Priorities

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

International Trade

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, what we want is for the Liberals to talk to the senators, because the senators' priority should be to approve bills passed by the elected members. Everything else comes second. Democracy comes first.

Two senators whom no one knows and no one voted for are blocking the will of all the parties to pass Bill C‑282. I would remind the House that if the bill does not pass by October 29, the Liberals will have to answer to Canadians. It is therefore in their best interest to rouse the Senate, whether to protect our farmers or their own posteriors. Will they get on with it?

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

Madam Speaker, our party has always supported supply management. Our party supported Bill C‑282, which is at issue here. We are waiting for the other chamber to pass Bill C‑282.

However, we have not heard much from the party opposite. The members of the official opposition have been fairly quiet on this issue. I hope that they, too, will make some calls to their Conservative colleagues on the other side.

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

Madam Speaker, the Senate is thumbing its nose at farmers. Here is the proof. Bill C‑282, which contains only one provision and which was supported by all parties in the House, has been stuck in the Senate for over a year. The Senate has taken over a year to examine a single provision that seeks to protect supply management. By way of comparison, do members know how long the Senate took to pass Bill C‑76, which was passed yesterday? It took three days.

Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, two senators appointed by the Liberals, are blocking Bill C‑282. They are thumbing their noses at farmers and at all of us here, the elected officials. Will the Liberals ask them to stop?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals do not want to fall by October 29, they had better start standing up for farmers.

Bill C-282, which has just one clause and protects supply management, has been stuck in the Senate for more than a year. Why? It is because Peter Boehm and Peter Harder, two unelected wannabe kings, both appointed to the Senate by the Liberals, are deliberately blocking a bill supported by the majority in the House.

Will the Liberals ensure that the senators respect democracy and pass Bill C‑282?

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, one that will allow him to keep trying to stay in the job. Bill C‑282, the supply management bill, has been in the Senate for a year and a half. The bill contains just one section. The unelected, illegitimate Senate seems to be leading the Prime Minister around by the nose.

It is his senators, the ones he appointed, who are standing in the way. Will he instruct them to respect democracy and our choices as elected representatives?

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑319

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

It is a privilege to rise in the House to debate the Bloc Québécois motion, which reads as follows:

That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C‑319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

It is important for Canadians watching at home to remember that such motions are not binding on the government. That said, it is important to discuss the measures in Bill C‑319 and the Bloc Québécois's other demands. As everyone knows, this is once again a minority Parliament. We usually go vote by vote, and the Bloc Québécois has made two requests. As a member of Parliament who is not a member of the Privy Council, I will share my perspective on what I believe to be the best way forward.

I want to begin by sharing a thought. I represent the small riding of Kings—Hants, where the issue of supply management is extremely important. My riding is home to largest concentration of supply-managed farmers east of Quebec. I was rather surprised to see that the Bloc Québécois motion did not include any measures or considerations regarding the importance of supply management. I was also rather surprised to hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois raise this important point last week. He also talked about how important it is for all parliamentarians and the government to protect the supply management system. It is very important for our farmers, but also for our food security.

Personally, I have some concerns about the U.S. presidential election and the position of the next U.S. Congress on the issue of supply management. I was in Washington this summer. It is not just one American party. It is not just the Democrats or just the Republicans. Representatives of both parties will have the opportunity to raise the issue of greater access to the Canadian market. It is very important for our parliamentarians to educate themselves and to resist this idea, because our supply management system is more important. The Conservatives are taking a very weak position in this respect. Many Conservative members voted against Bill C-282, which sought to protect supply management. All of the other MPs, especially the Liberals, were in favour of the bill and of protecting supply management.

I want to remind farmers in my riding and other ridings in Nova Scotia that it is important to keep an eye on the Conservatives.

In the past, Conservative governments have allowed cuts to accessing the system, willingly, without necessarily negotiating it away.

There are a lot of seniors in Kings—Hants. They are important, and they are the type of seniors, by and large, who are blue-collar workers. They are seniors who have worked in forestry. They have worked in agriculture. They have worked in the type of industries where they may not have large pensions, unlike people in other areas of the country and maybe in bigger urban centres.

I have taken great pride, over the five years I have had the privilege of being the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, to try to be an advocate in this space, because we do have to make sure that our seniors have a dignified retirement and that we are taking measures to support seniors across the country, including indeed, for me, right at home in Kings—Hants. Our government has been there.

Our government has been there, and there are a few things I want to point out to my hon. colleagues.

When Mr. Harper was in government, he was proposing to actually move the retirement age up from 65 to 67, such that seniors in Kings—Hants would not have been eligible for old age security or the guaranteed income supplement until age 67, had the Conservatives had their way. Of course our Minister of Seniors has pointed out that Mr. Harper made that decision and policy choice at the World Economic Forum.

However, we are the government that actually brought the retirement age back to 65. We have invested in old age security for those who are age 75 and up, and I know that is part of the conversation piece, representing over $3 billion a year in new investments for seniors. We have also supported long-term care facilities.

We have invested in dental care. I had the opportunity to talk to some of my constituents, who have said to me, “Look, I haven't had the opportunity to have my teeth cleaned in over five years. I haven't been able to visit a dentist, because I just can't afford it.” Our government, with the support of the majority of members of Parliament, actually created a program where now close to 80% of dentists across the country are participating. That is extremely important, as it is a measure that supports not only health care for seniors but also affordability.

The members who voted against the measure, namely the Conservatives, like to talk about seniors, but when it comes to the measures that actually support them, they vote against them. The member for Carleton talks about pensions and the member for Burnaby South, yet he is not willing to support seniors' dental care in my riding of Kings—Hants or anywhere else in the country. He says it does not exist, but almost a million Canadians now have benefited from the program, notably our seniors.

Let us talk about the threshold before there are clawbacks. Our government has been increasing the amount of money that a senior can earn before it is clawed back on the guaranteed income supplement or on their old age security cheque, which is important. We had moved that from $3,500 up to $5,000, and now it is 50% more, from $5,000 to $10,000. That is great; however, I would like to see the government do more.

Hopefully in the fall economic statement, in the budget, we can see it go even higher, because for seniors who are still able and wanting to contribute by working, we do not want there to be an impediment to their doing so because they are worried about losing their seniors' benefits. Therefore we need to go higher, and I believe that the government has the ability to do so and will do so in the days ahead. We will see where our other hon. colleagues stand on that.

Let us talk about the health care investment. When I talk to seniors, I hear that they worry about health care. We have been there as a government to step up. However, the Conservatives voted against it.

The point I want to make is that, as it relates to seniors, I am proud of the record the current government has. We have one of the lowest poverty rates of seniors in the world, which matters. This is not just a feeling, an emotion, but a fact. Are there challenges out there that we have to continue to address? Absolutely there are, and I may not agree with the entirety of the motion before the House here today as it relates to doing something to support seniors between 65 and 74.

However, I think that particularly for our lower-income seniors between ages 65 and 74, we have to be there to make sure we can support them. In fact it is in the Liberal platform to make sure we can identify those seniors who would be on the guaranteed income supplement, to support them in the days ahead.

When we look at the Bloc's voting record on support for seniors, it immediately becomes clear that they do not really care about seniors' needs. The Bloc voted against dental care for seniors, against lowering the retirement age, and against increasing the GIS.

Generally speaking, the initiatives in this bill are good, but it is important to understand that, with regard to the motion that the Bloc Québécois is moving today, it is very difficult and very rare for a government to grant a royal recommendation.

I would love to be able to have one of my hon. colleagues step up and ask me a question.

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-319

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

moved:

That the House call upon the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that a royal recommendation is granted as soon as possible to Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by inviting the House to recognize the importance of the discussions we are going to have, beyond the context in which this conversation is happening.

Bills with a budgetary component that are introduced by a party that is not in office require royal recommendation, which can only be obtained by the executive branch. That may sound like a platitude of little importance, but without royal recommendation, Bill C-319 cannot become law.

This bill seeks to ensure fairness when it comes to retirement pensions for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. The government is the one that created this discrimination by increasing pensions only for seniors aged 75 and up. We will come back to the government's reasons for such a surprising decision. This bill also enables retirees to earn $6,500 rather than the current maximum of $5,000 without being penalized with respect to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc Québécois has set two conditions for propping up a government in dire straits and not pulling the rug out from under it. We made no bones about the fact that this was an opportunity to make gains for a very large pool of Quebec seniors, but also to protect supply management, Quebec's agricultural model and prospects for the next generation of farmers, once and for all. Each time a trade agreement is being negotiated, the government promises that it will not put supply management back on the table until it puts it back on the table. That has to stop.

Since 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to significantly increase the purchasing power of seniors aged 65 and over, who built Quebec and are behind the prosperity we are all blithely enjoying. Purchasing power, those magic words everyone uses, is all well and good until there is a price tag on it. When it costs something, suddenly purchasing power becomes too expensive. I will come back to that.

The Bloc Québécois was asking for that in 2019, before the pandemic. When I became leader of the Bloc Québécois, we made it a priority because it was a no-brainer. Then the pandemic hit and caused a kind of pre-inflation for retirees, with everything costing more due to their isolation and vulnerability. When actual inflation struck, affecting everyone, it hit the most vulnerable even harder. Interest rates started climbing. If I may be so bold as to mention the agricultural sector, there were increased environmental concerns. The agricultural model has been jeopardized, and the next generation of farmers is facing uncertainty.

The Bloc Québécois put forward two solutions that are good for Quebec and not bad for Canada, which is great. Both solutions are legislative, not to mention very advanced in terms of parliamentary procedure. Within a timeline now set at four weeks, the House of Commons, the Senate and the government could go through all stages of Bill C‑319 on seniors and Bill C‑282 on supply management. Both bills could receive royal assent, despite how archaic and outdated it is to think that we need the royalty to support a bill that stems from the democratic process.

If the fact that all the parties in the House have voted in favour of both these bills at one point or another does not get them passed within the next four weeks, we must ask ourselves whether somewhere, someone who shall remain nameless has not been a hypocrite. If nothing else, we will be able to test this out.

The recent sequence of events has created a fair amount of turmoil, it must be said. The New Democratic Party opted out of its alliance with the Liberal Party of Canada, although it is fair to ask whether this is actually the case. The days ahead, maybe the weeks ahead if not the months ahead, will determine the accuracy of this statement.

The Bloc Québécois captured the by-election in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. This seismic event shook the pillars of a temple that was not as solid as was once thought. There was a motion by the official opposition to bring down the government, all because Joe wanted to be prime minister instead of Jack, even though he might not be so different from Jack because he has no program. Naturally enough, the Conservative motion fizzled out. Next came our proposal for seniors and farmers, which we are taking up today.

I would remind the House that this remains a minority government. Replacing it without a program, without an election platform, failing to tell voters what they would do with the mandate they are seeking, this is not an end unto itself. It would change nothing. It means nothing and it gives people no idea about what would come after. I can never get over the fact that the most comprehensive program presented to voters by the parties in this Parliament is the one put forth by the lone party not interested in forming the government. It is so ironic, but we are simply doing our job.

If the government does not accede to our terms, we will get the message and embark on negotiations, which will not necessarily be enjoyable but whose end purpose will be clear. We will negotiate with the other opposition parties to bring down a government that will have abandoned the very notion of being useful to millions of Canadians and Quebeckers.

A number of things were said, but they are not necessarily based in fact. The government maintains control over the parliamentary agenda. It has the power to decide which subjects will be taken up and when, and when opposition days will take place. It still has a tremendous amount of control. It might still have some kind of understanding with the New Democratic Party. The government can also prorogue Parliament. The government can send the Prime Minister to talk to the Governor General for five minutes in English and an election will be called.

The government can also respect the clear will of a massive number of people and take into account the fact that we have not tried to turn this into a divisive issue. The Bloc Québécois has a bit of influence on the political or moral objective of this. In fact, the subject we have proposed is not controversial in Parliament. Some might have preferred this to be a controversial subject. At times there are some who hope for failure to justify their political posturing. We have more maturity than that.

We have proposed something for our most vulnerable, who were vulnerable before the pandemic, who were vulnerable during the pandemic and who are even more vulnerable during this inflation crisis, which also has repercussions on housing.

The government partially indexed the pensions of Canadians aged 75 and over on the pretext that they needed this more than other seniors. While not entirely false, this justifies nothing. It did not index the pensions of those aged 65 to 74. The real reason seems to be that the government, cruelly cynical in its approach, is telling people to burn through their private pension and if they are still alive once their money runs out, they will be given some more. There is something cruel about this message. It seems beneath an institution that should, above all, exhibit statesmanship.

That is really what this is about. The government told us our ask would cost a lot, so we are going to have some fun with this. It would cost $3 billion a year and $16 billion over five years. When we hear that, we all just beat our heads against the wall. Fine.

However, during that same period, no matter how many ways they try to conceal it, Ottawa will be giving between $50 billion and $80 billion to the oil companies, who do not need it. Some of the wealthiest companies in the world, supported by one of the wealthiest banking systems in the world, are going to receive for their shareholders, who are among the wealthiest in the world, between $50 billion and $80 billion over five years. Then we are being told that seniors do not deserve to get $3 billion a year.

In response to that obscenity, I am telling the government to take at least $3 billion from the money it is giving to the oil companies and, through them, to the banks in Toronto, take a bit more from Edmonton and Toronto and give it to seniors in Canada and Quebec, whose purchasing power has been shrinking for years.

Since the oil companies are the ones benefiting the most, it is not surprising that the Conservatives, the great defenders of government austerity, are mum on this lavish, excessive, wild spending that is often supported by bad science.

We are talking about a lot of people here. Let us put numbers to it. There are one million people 65 to 74 in Quebec that some people are saying no to. The $3 billion we are talking about for all of Canada would serve four million Canadians, including one million Quebeckers. They seem far more important to me than some oil companies and a couple hundred shareholders.

We could be hardheaded and cynical and look at it through an electoral lens. Just for fun, let us say no to one million Quebeckers. Let us think about it. We will be helping one million Quebeckers, and beyond that, since we are happy to help others with our motion, a total of four million Canadians, which is no small thing. The merits need to be considered, but I cannot help but think that some people's approach is more cynical.

We have been told that we should talk about immigration, and I would like to settle that. We originally talked about giving Quebec all powers over immigration. We even talked about holding a referendum to get them. Now we are halfway through something that we hardly know how to calculate, given that there is more than one kind of immigration and even more than one kind of temporary immigration. We still maintain that Quebec should be given all immigration powers, and we have not backed down or shrunk from our position.

However, if we had chosen to debate a motion about immigration, language, secularism or ending the religious exemption for hate speech and incitement to violence, the NDP would naturally have sided with the Liberals, since that is where they reside ideologically. It is no surprise, as we all know. That is not a criticism in terms of the current debate. At no political cost, the NDP and the Liberals would have voted together. That would be the best way of guaranteeing that the government stayed in power until 2025, and perhaps well into 2025.

The best way to achieve the opposite of that, of what some people claim to want, was to choose a divisive topic that offers no real gains, a topic that no one in any capital could ever claim is nationalistic. I think we made the right choice, and we are forcing everyone, all the caucuses, to really think about what they are going to do here. The Bloc Québécois has wind in its sails and has put forward a meaningful proposal.

There is another issue that we would not have solved by going back to immigration because it is just smoke and mirrors. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say they are going to reduce the Liberal target of 500,000 immigrants per year. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say that they reject the McKinsey-led century initiative, which is basically the storyline of James Bond's Spectre. I have yet to hear the Conservatives say they are going to cede all immigration powers to Quebec.

Most of all, I have never heard the Conservatives dare say any one of these three things in English, because the cost for Ontario would be horrific. I have to say that, in this major war going on mostly in Ontario, the Conservatives are trying to please exactly the same people as the Liberal Party.

Let me get back to something simple: the actual intention, the common good and statesmanship. I assume that no one in Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton or even Quebec City thinks that $80 a month or $1,000 a year for one million people in Quebec and three million people in Canada is nothing. It is more than the government's dental care program, which interferes in our jurisdiction. No one really thinks that the Bloc Québécois is asking for nothing. Anyone who seriously thinks that needs to listen to what we are saying, so let us pay attention to the words. Words have meaning and they can also have a price.

Bill C‑319 will immediately improve the quality of life of four million people, including those who want to help mitigate the labour shortage, which is still affecting many businesses. Bill C‑282 will ensure that supply management is no longer compromised in our trade agreements. All of the discussions and both bills put forward by the Bloc Québécois are currently at an advanced stage. Everyone voted in favour of them at one point or another. These bills help Quebec, and not at the expense of Canada.

If these bills are not passed and do not get royal assent within four weeks exactly, we will assume that the government has rejected this opportunity to help four million people, in addition to farmers; a lot of people stand to gain from this. Given the extreme vulnerability of the government and its principal ally, we will act accordingly.

Make no mistake, we are prepared to do what we have to do. We have the funds, the issues, the program and the candidates. We are ready to go. It is not what we would prefer in the short term. It is not what Quebeckers would prefer in the short term. However, everyone understands that, if the government does not demonstrate its usefulness and open-mindedness very soon, we will trigger an election no later than October 29.

International Trade

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every party should be speaking out about the fact that senators are acting like elected members and obstructing the will of the House, which is to protect farmers. The Liberals should be even more motivated to do so because their fate is on the line. These unelected senators believe they have the right to decide for the Liberals. This is our appeal to the Liberals and the other parties as well.

Are they going to pressure the Senate to respect democracy and finally pass Bill C‑282?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have issued an ultimatum for supply management. That date is October 29. Yesterday, senators once again took our Bill C‑282, which protects farmers, off their agenda. The Senate has been stalling on this bill for a year and a half now, even though all parties voted for it. The Liberals should ask themselves whether they want to put their fate in the hands of some unelected senators.

Will they be making any calls to the Senate to send a clear message that if Bill C‑282 is not passed, an election will be called?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the government

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, now I understand why we get so few answers during question period. It is because we call it “question period” and not “question and answer period”.

This afternoon, perhaps we can dare to hope that the government will give us an answer. My question is very simple. I want to know if the government is going to proceed with the irreversible implementation of two bills that the Bloc Québécois has been championing for months, namely, Bill C‑319 to increase old age security for people aged 65 to 74, and the famous Bill C‑282 on supply management.

Could I have an answer?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, our government supports supply management, and my hon. colleague is well aware of that. We supported Bill C-282 because, of course, we have supported and always will support supply management, unlike the Conservatives, who fell shamefully behind when important funding for supply management came to the House and voted against it.

My hon. colleague is fully aware that we have supported and will continue to support supply management.

[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.

World Milk Day

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

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday is World Milk Day. From skim milk to lactose-free milk to chocolate milk, this beverage will always be a comfort food. However, because of market share surrendered in past agreements, about one in five pints of milk will eventually be imported from abroad.

That is why the Senate must pass Bill C‑282 as soon as possible. Our dairy farmers do not want to beg for temporary compensation for permanent losses. They want to work hard to make a decent living and provide us with quality milk. Our public policies must be designed to serve the interests of the public and safeguard our own food security, not please foreign interests.

It is time to stand up. Our farmers are passionate about dairy production, committed to a sustainable future and proud of what they have achieved together, and they are calling on the Senate to act quickly. Let us all celebrate World Milk Day together.

Supply Management

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Senate will vote on the future of Bill C‑282 and supply-managed sectors in advance of upcoming international negotiations.

We are asking members of the Senate to respect the House of Commons' solid vote at third reading and to vote in favour of sending Bill C‑282 to committee.

Protecting supply-managed producers also means protecting their relevant suppliers and the entire agricultural ecosystem for the good of agricultural production as a whole. It means ensuring that our rural areas have a stable, prosperous and dynamic population.

Most of all, supply management is about our people delivering a high-quality, home-grown product for our people. That is how we ensure our food security.

We ask that members of the Senate vote in favour. The economies of our rural areas and villages depend on it.

Softwood Lumber

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Chair, the trade minister has not participated in this debate. It was not her who led off debate for the government. It shows us how important this issue actually is for the government, that the trade minister does not lead off debate on a simmering eight-year softwood lumber dispute.

It is worse than this. We have declined as the United States' trading partner, but we also have continuous own goals in the trading relationship. We have to look at things like Bill C-282, the supply management bill. That did not win us any friends in the United States, and now the Liberals are saying they are going to unilaterally impose a digital services tax, which the United States is adamantly against.

We have declined as a trading partner because of the incompetence of the government to manage the trading relationship. The Liberals bring in all of these trade irritants, and they wonder why they cannot resolve this dispute. It all goes back to the incompetence of the government, the incompetence of the Prime Minister and the incompetence of the trade minister. They are the people who are responsible for this, no one else. The buck stops with them.

I would love to see the Prime Minister come and contribute to this debate. I would love to see the trade minister come and contribute to this debate, but I suspect I will not, because it is actually not important for them to do so. That is what is causing all of the job losses we are seeing. We have gone from 33% market share down to 26%, and that is old data. That is actually from 2022. It is probably worse. We are probably down to 24%.

This is haemorrhaging jobs in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and the Maritimes, and the government's response is to not have the minister lead off debate and to talk about its team Canada approach. It is not doing anything. It will not do anything. Even the Liberals on the trade committee know it will only be resolved by Prime Minister-to-President negotiation. Unfortunately, we are snookered, because our leader has nothing to offer on this.

Dairy Farmers

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the presence of dairy farmers from across Canada, and especially those from Quebec. They are on the Hill for the day to attend meetings with parliamentarians.

Our entrepreneurs are proud to offer the public their product at a stable and reasonable price that allows them to earn a decent living from their trade. That is why they are asking parliamentarians to support Bill C-282 to ensure the sustainability of supply management, and they hope the Senate will pass the legislation quickly.

Defending this system will help guarantee our national food security while protecting our model of regional agriculture on a human scale. This predictability allows farmers to invest in research and development, thereby constantly improving their productivity, the quality of their products and their environmental footprint.

I thank dairy farmers for getting up every morning to supply us with high-quality milk. We always enjoy their delicious products.

Carbon Pricing

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

Madam Speaker, it is Christmas and I want to thank the turkey farmers for doing an amazing job providing turkeys for all of us during Christmas.

The one thing that the entire supply-managed sector is asking of us is to support Bill C-282. I know that caucus is split, but our caucus is unified in terms of supporting our dairy farmers, our turkey farmers, our egg farmers and our chicken farmers.

Where is that member's support and where is that caucus's support for Bill C-282 in the other chamber?

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

Madam Speaker, I see the enthusiasm they have for a particular bill on the other side. I do not hear them being as loud in supporting Bill C-282, a bill we unanimously supported on this side of the House that supports supply management.

Where is the member and the other side of the House's support for Bill C-282, which the supply-managed sector, dairy farmers, turkey farmers, egg farmers and chicken farmers are all asking us to support? Where is the member and that party's caucus support for Bill C-282?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that great question.

My colleague said that the trade alliance represents 90% of farmers. They often say that, but it actually represents 90% of exporters. That is an important nuance.

Of course the alliance is worried, because it believes that we will need these producers in order to develop other markets. What we are being told is that the government supports supply-managed producers, but not to the point of protecting them. It supports them, but it wants to hang onto them as bargaining chips. That is what we want to put an end to with this bill, which aims to ensure the sustainability of the supply management system because it brings stability to our rural areas and promotes dynamic use of our land. It is not in conflict with exports. We are capable of doing two things at the same time.

I just got back from a mission abroad. When I go on those missions, I always talk about our food exports. I also champion our exporters, and I want to speak directly to the ones who are tuning in right now. I want them to know that they do not need to fear Bill C‑282. Bill C‑282 is about ensuring sustainability. If we do not pass this bill, foreign producers will get 18% of the dairy market. That is one out of every five litres of milk. When we reduce domestic production, it will not work anymore because it will come flooding in from outside.

If the government decides not to protect these people, it should have the decency to tell them to their faces and buy back their quotas, because to do otherwise would be hypocrisy. These people are essential. We need them. We must pass this bill, which is in danger of being rejected by the House. The government—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a private member's bill currently in the Senate, Bill C-282, from a Bloc Québécois member. The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of agriculture food exporters, says that if Bill C-282 becomes law, it would be dangerous for future Canadian agri-food exports. The bill would prevent the government from talking about supply management in any future trade negotiations. If it became a problem, would it not affect the agricultural sector, one of the star performers in the Canadian economy, in terms of exports?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely. In fact, that is one of the recommendations that I did not have time to talk about. The report recommended that in the agri‑food sector, the cap for foreign workers increase from 10% to 20%. I even proposed 30%, but the majority wanted 20%, so we put 20%. Then the government did it. That is one of the things in the 18 recommendations that was done. I say bravo, but it is likely not enough because we have to be smart and provide access to labour.

My colleague is also absolutely right about international trade. A big part of our agricultural production is geared toward international trade. We need to support and develop this aspect. On the other hand, let us not forget that we have other farms that are not export-oriented. I am talking about supply-managed farms. Bill C‑282, which is currently in the Senate, received strong majority support in the House. It should be passed quickly.

When I talk about having respect for our farmers and the way they work, it is because these people are essential and are the bedrock of our rural regions. This bill needs to be passed as soon as possible.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, today's motion is on Bill C‑234. I agree with my colleague on Bill C‑282 and I hope that it will get through every stage of the legislative process in the House. Bill C‑234 is much further along in the entire process in the Senate. I hope that we will be able to adopt Bill C‑234 as soon as possible. Bill C‑282 will take its course and we will see what happens.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see how the Conservatives bring everything back to the carbon tax. The conflict in Ukraine is all about the carbon tax. Now, the Conservatives are saying that the problems farmers are having are because of the carbon tax. The Conservatives' common sense boils down to one thing: eliminating the carbon tax, even if it does not apply in Quebec.

All of the Conservatives' efforts over the past 18 months have been focused on the carbon tax. I have a very simple question for my colleague, who says he wants to help and support farmers. If that is what he wants to do, then there is a very worthwhile bill that is also sitting in the Senate, the supply management bill. If the Conservatives want to help farmers, why do they not focus their efforts on Bill C-282?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. She made a long speech about the Senate respecting the decisions of the House of Commons. Would she be willing to repeat her speech in its entirety and present exactly the same message, but simply replace Bill C-234 with Bill C-282, which deals with supply management?

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to withdraw the comment and apologize. I want to recognize that the Bloc absolutely is in line with the NDP on abolishing the upper chamber.

The member is right. In addition to Bill C-234, there is a very important bill that we were proud to support, Bill C-282. There are a lot of supply-managed farmers in my riding who personally met with me. I met with many of their industry groups.

We were proud to support that piece of legislation, because we simply cannot trust Liberal and Conservative governments to honour the spirit of supply management. We agreed with the Bloc Québécois in putting that in legislation so that we can prevent future governments from negotiating away our supply-managed industries.

I want to give another shout-out. The member for York—Simcoe has Bill C-280 in the Senate. I hope that the Senate will respect the will of this House, because that is another important bill dealing with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the fresh fruit and vegetable sector.

Again, strong agricultural bills are coming from the House of Commons. I think one thing that Canadians deserve from us is for us to have consistency in our positions. If we look at the Conservative history at the Senate, it has been anything but consistent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his speech. I appreciated almost all of it, except the part where he said the NDP was the only party that has supported the abolition of the Senate. I would like to remind him that this is also the position of the Bloc Québécois.

On this matter, our decisions are predictable. This allows the people who vote for us to know why they vote for us and to anticipate the decisions we will make in the House. I find it a bit sad that the Conservatives' decisions depend on what will serve their ends in the moment.

Consider Bill C-234, but also Bill C-282, which was passed by the House to protect supply management. The Conservatives are doing exactly what they are now scolding senators for doing, namely slowing down the passage of a bill. The only thing the Conservatives are consistent about is that if they can insert the words “carbon tax” somewhere, they will use it as an excuse to vote against something. This makes for some particularly bizarre decisions, like their decision to vote against the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

I would like to hear from my colleague as to whether he thinks this lax approach, this cherry picking, is disappointing for the public, because it does not give voters a sense of where the Conservative Party is generally headed.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather confusing.

My colleague is telling us that the carbon tax applies but that it applies indirectly. It is hard to see what he is getting at.

If we really want to help farmers in Quebec, then we need to defend the supply management bill. My advice to my colleague is to talk to the Conservative senators and ask them to pass Bill C-282 and move it forward a bit more quickly. I am sure that all farmers in Quebec will be much happier with him for doing that than for fiercely defending a tax that does not apply to us.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this Conservative opposition day. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful and handsome colleague from Jonquière.

First I would like to say something to the Conservatives, who may want to make a meme about my speech. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑234, and all parties voted unanimously in favour of it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will talk about it a little later, but it is important to clarify this from the start.

Today, I want to talk about something I experienced, to give context to the Conservatives' motion that we have been discussing and debating since this morning. Today we are watching a finely orchestrated scene of intimidation. It makes no sense. There are women from all parties sitting here in the House, and I do not understand how the Conservative Party can deliberately orchestrate an intimidation campaign targeting two women senators over Bill C‑234.

These two senators have been named and are doing their job. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois could do without the Senate, but today these two senators are here and the Senate is sitting. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are senators. The fact is they are here, they have a role to play and they are being deliberately intimidated. We are talking about senators Bernadette Clement and Chantal Petitclerc. As we know, Ms. Petitclerc is a Paralympic athlete, an admirable woman and role model in our society. The same applies to Ms. Clement, whom I have met. She is the former mayor of Cornwall. She and I shared the responsibility for maintaining relations with indigenous people from the Akwesasne reserve. These two inspiring role models are being deliberately intimidated.

What surprises me most is that this came from a Conservative member who, frankly, I respect. I am surprised to see that it is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who launched this intimidation campaign by tweeting photos of Ms. Clement and Ms. Petitclerc. As we know, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is the House leader of the official opposition. I believe that whoever holds such a position should exercise it with a sense of propriety. They cannot engage in petty politics, resorting to intimidation to coerce two women senators, as he did. He published two photos on the social network X, one of Senator Clement and the other of Senator Petitclerc. Frankly, I may not be the most creative person on earth, but it did not take much imagination to see these two pictures looked like mugshots, such as those one might see on wanted posters in a western.

The two women received many threats. They received so many threats that Senator Clement, on recommendation by security personnel, even had to leave her home and family to take refuge in her official apartment in Ottawa, a much more secure place than her home.

How can we, in 2023, accept the use of such partisan politics—indeed dirty politics, a term I rarely use—to attack individuals and their private life?

The member for La Prairie and I have also been victims of such nasty intimidation, and I can say that what we experienced at the time was serious. Our children, partners and family were all involved. What the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did is unacceptable. If the Conservatives think the Bloc Québécois will play their game and support a motion that encourages the intimidation of two women, they are wrong. We have no intention of playing that role. I understand the Conservatives are on a quest, that they feel like kings in waiting, but I will tell them quite frankly, if they think they will appeal to Quebeckers with such tactics, they are wrong. They do not understand Quebeckers at all.

In Quebec, we do not like people who viciously attack others, who bully them and who put so much undue pressure on them that it affects their personal and family lives. In the case of Ms. Petitclerc and Ms. Clement, I would even say it is affecting their professional lives. How would any of us feel coming to work, knowing that tons of people are writing to us? I, for one, know how it feels. The member for La Prairie and I received hundreds, if not thousands, of hateful emails. Do my colleagues know why I received them? It was because I stood up in the House and asked the Chair to reprimand a member who had done something serious. I wanted an apology. The Chair thought I was right and asked the member to apologize. He never did apologize, but that is not the point. The point is that my personal life, and the life of the member for La Prairie, were severely affected. I went through sleepless nights because my children were getting death threats. That is serious. If the Conservative Party hopes to govern Canada in the near future, it should know that this is not the type of thing that will inspire Quebeckers to trust it. Quebeckers abhor bullies. They abhor people who deliberately set out to hurt other people on a personal level. This seems like a ploy borrowed from the Americans, and that is not who we are.

In addition to bullying, the Conservatives are moving a motion with a false premise. Its content supports some highly questionable tactics. With this motion, they are trying to make us believe that Bill C-234 will eliminate the carbon tax. It does not eliminate the carbon tax. It extends the exemption for farmers who use propane to dry their grain by eight years. I will say it straight off: There is no carbon tax in Quebec. Bill C‑234 has no effect on Quebec farmers.

If Quebec Conservatives are listening to us, maybe this will make them want to work for our farmers and say that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Again, passing Bill C‑234 will have no effect on Quebec farmers. If Conservatives want to work for Quebec, the Conservatives in the Senate should get a move on and work to pass Bill C-282, which does affect Quebec. It affects dairy farmers, poultry farmers, all farmers under supply management.

That would really be working for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to stand up to bullies and fight for Quebec's interests.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you have been enjoying listening to the debate on the proposed free trade agreement with Ukraine, so we will continue with that.

This is important. This is a free trade agreement. We have already announced our position, so no one will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will support the implementation of this agreement. Today, we are not discussing the content of the agreement, but rather its implementation.

We know that Quebeckers are in favour of free trade. We have historically been in favour of free trade. Since the time of the free trade agreement with the United States, then NAFTA with Mexico, Quebeckers have always been leaders in trade with our friends and partners. Back in the day, Ontario was against NAFTA, and the auto industry was against it. We Quebeckers were for it because we believe that countries with smaller economies benefit from free trade. The day Quebec becomes independent, international trade will be part of the solution to our economic equation, just as it is for Canada, which is a very small economy.

We support this proposed agreement. Obviously, the timing is important; there is a war in Ukraine, and it is important to show our solidarity, so we support it.

Today, the government would have us believe that we are discussing the content of this free trade agreement among parliamentarians. However, it is very important to understand how a free trade agreement is negotiated. When two countries meet to negotiate a free trade agreement like this one, the first step is very easy. The countries sit down together and establish a certain number of key principles. For example, they may choose to be in favour of trade, freedom or what have you. Once they have agreed on the key principles, which is easy and takes about two hours, and that is hardly an exaggeration, they establish the exceptions. From that point on, the free trade agreement negotiations are focused on exceptions. We could be talking about cultural exceptions, since Quebec is the only francophone nation in North America, or agricultural exceptions that seek to protect supply management. We could be talking about all kinds of exceptions for our industries.

It is at these critical moments that Quebec usually gets sacrificed. Take, for example, supply management. We know that when the agreements were negotiated with the European Union, the United States and, right now, the United Kingdom, the government said that it would sacrifice Quebec aluminum and Quebec dairy farmers and that it would protect the auto industry. The devil is in the details.

Obviously, the problem is that we have no control over what the negotiators negotiate. We have absolutely no say in the matter. What we are currently discussing is the implementation of the agreement.

Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary and member for Winnipeg North, who is chatting with his colleagues across the way, told us that we Quebeckers are lucky because this time, supply management, our farmers and our dairy farmers were not sacrificed in any way. However, the truth is that the country in this particular case, Ukraine, did not have any surplus milk to export. When it comes to Wisconsin, which does have surplus milk to export, we are suddenly part of the exceptions that are set aside and supply management is sacrificed. When it comes to French cheese in the context of our negotiations with the European Union, supply management is sacrificed, just as it is in the case of British cheese.

In this case, apparently these irritants do not exist, because the major exceptions that Quebec typically calls for were not central to the negotiations.

The fact remains that we are sitting here like a bunch of puppets, discussing the implementation of something that was negotiated over our heads. In the U.S., Congress and elected officials give the mandate to negotiate treaties, whereas here in Canada, mandates come from the executive and ministers. Parliament has absolutely no say. That is the root of the issue, and that is why, in many cases, we disagree with certain provisions in these free trade agreements.

It is similar in Europe, where treaties are ratified with the European Union, and member states, even the smaller ones, have a strong voice. We saw this with Belgium's grievances in relation to the free trade agreement with the European Union, for example. In these cases, the smaller states are very involved in making decisions. In the present case, however, Quebec was not consulted.

The job of implementing free trade agreements is left to provincial legislatures like the Quebec National Assembly. They are told that they are going to have to change their laws to implement a free trade agreement about which Parliament was never consulted. The same thing is happening today. We are being forced to vote on the mechanics of a car without having chosen its make, colour or options. Still, it is up to us to legislate on the spark plug about to be replaced inside the car. That is essentially what is happening and it is obviously problematic.

Not everything in this treaty is perfect. My colleague with the fantastic tie, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, talked about the fact that our Liberal colleague was unable to answer the question about relations between states and multinationals. There is the matter of multinationals suing states for what could amount to expropriation, depending on how it is defined in the free trade agreements. This has always been a problem. We saw it with NAFTA. At the time, the multilateral agreement on investment was derailed because of that.

These are the kinds of provisions that say, for instance, that if Canada decides to apply environmental policies that are not strict, but modern, a Ukrainian investor who invests here and feels affected by these policies could sue the Canadian government, the Canadian taxpayer and the Quebec taxpayer because they felt aggrieved by these environmental policies. This is a major problem.

Earlier, the Liberal member was unable to answer the question on this subject. He did not even understand the question, because he confused the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, which exists in an agreement like this and is an arbitration mechanism that works relatively well in most cases, with the dispute settlement mechanism between a multinational corporation and a state, which involves the courts. This denies Canada its sovereignty. It denies our state its sovereignty. It is highly problematic and should no longer be included in free trade agreements.

I will also come back to how it is negotiated. Parliament does not grant negotiating mandates. It is the government and the ministers who, following discussions behind closed doors, decide to grant a negotiating mandate. Cabinet solidarity keeps them mum. Then this all comes before us and we have nothing to say about it. Parliament needs to get in the habit of restricting the power of the executive branch in advance, before it negotiates these agreements.

That is precisely the objective of Bill C-282, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Since we were never asked our opinion, we decided to introduce a bill that requires the government to respect our supply management system and preserve it in its entirety when negotiating free trade agreements. Why do we have to take this unique approach, which involves locking the government into something ahead of time? The reason is that Parliament is never asked to have its say, and that is a big problem.

I would like to add that there are obviously good things about the bill to implement the 2023 free trade agreement. There is a chapter about corruption, transparency and responsible business conduct. The provisions on responsible conduct propose voluntary, non-binding codes of conduct.

I would like to remind the government that, this week, we will be debating Bill C-290, which deals with the protection of whistleblowers. It is a bill that the government itself should have introduced a long time ago. All of the wonderful principles of transparency and respect for institutions that are set out in this bill are found in Bill C-290. The government will have to put its money where its mouth is. If it is good for the Canada-Ukraine agreement, then the government must support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-290 at third reading.

In closing, this is an important free trade agreement that builds diplomatic ties. It is symbolic and an expression of goodwill toward Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine is a small trading partner.

The effect this agreement will have on our economy will therefore be minor, but it is important to express our solidarity with Ukraine at this time.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we must work diligently and intelligently. That is what I was saying earlier.

That is why, during my statement, I mentioned Bill C‑282, which is currently before the Senate. The purpose of that bill is to protect a very important sector. We can be in favour of free trade and adopt agreements that are smart, that do not sacrifice certain groups to the benefit of others.

I think we are capable of negotiating intelligently, and that is why we will do so together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑57. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who did me a favour by allowing me to go first.

Let me say from the outset that, generally speaking, we are all in favour of free trade and we are in favour of this agreement with Ukraine. We know that we are in a partnership with the Ukrainians, whom we have been supporting intensively since the beginning of the conflict. This bill is a logical continuation. The new agreement will replace the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was vaguer, less prescriptive and less clear. We think this is a positive change, especially when it comes to the implementation mechanisms, which have been amended to be more stringent.

This agreement sends a very clear message to the whole world, and especially to Ukrainians, that we are bound to their nation by ties of friendship and that we support them under the current circumstances. One positive element of this agreement is that it recognizes the Donbass and Crimea as being part of Ukrainian territory. This may seem symbolic, but it is important to make this kind of statement to send a clear message to the international community. I will be at the Asia Pacific Forum a few weeks from now, and I will convey the same message on behalf of everyone here.

The agreement, which was signed with the President of Ukraine during his latest visit, clarifies some technical details.

The problem we have with this kind of bill is that, once passed by Parliament, it allows for the creation of institutions or mechanisms to govern free trade agreements. However, we never get to have our say on what is actually in those agreements. We can only accept or reject them wholesale. It would be reasonable for parliamentarians to put forward proposals and analyze various texts to produce a better, more refined agreement whose every nuance has been studied in detail. The Canadian government's current system allows the executive to make all the decisions. The powers of Parliament itself are extremely limited because members cannot participate.

I will never forget what happened right after I was first elected in 2019. I had to vote in favour of ratifying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which forced supply-managed producers to accept yet more concessions. Although it pained us greatly, we were forced to vote in favour of the agreement knowing it would hurt people.

We do not want that to happen again. I can see that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very honoured and very pleased that he is hearing my message. I invite all the parties to sit down together and figure out how we can change the process for adopting international agreements like this one. It is important.

Some people here agreed with Bill C‑282, which limits concessions involving supply management in future trade agreements. It was the way these agreements are currently developed that forced us to be inventive and resort to a bill to protect supply management. This issue has now been resolved. However, in other trade agreements, there will be other delicate issues, where some groups are more impacted than others, and where balance will need to be restored. That is why we need to review the current system.

Another major flaw is that, once the agreement is signed, the provinces and Quebec will be called upon to apply and implement the provisions under their jurisdiction.

However, they were not asked for their opinion beforehand. There are still some people here who wonder why we want Quebec to be independent. This is another example that shows why. We want to control what is included in our international agreements. That is one justification for independence.

Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of International Trade a question, I was pleased to receive a very clear answer. The new agreement with Ukraine is good; it will replace the one from 2017. However, the government issued a unilateral remission order last year to allow all Ukrainian products to enter Canada tariff-free. That was fine because it was a measure to help the Ukrainian economy during the conflict. No one disputed that.

However, in its haste and panic, the government threw supply-managed commodities into the mix, which is unacceptable. Yes, it is important to help, and we have always been there. The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of measures to help Ukrainians in this terrible ongoing conflict. However, we need to be able to help others without hurting ourselves.

Why put supply management in this order? It was difficult because it was becoming politically sensitive to complain about something that favoured Ukraine. It took a long time. Supply management groups lobbied the government. The opposition worked very hard. When the order was renewed, supply-managed commodities were taken out of it. That was a good thing.

That is why I put the question to the minister yesterday. Until Bill C‑282 is passed into law, there will always be a tiny possibility of further concessions.

Now the rest of the bill is mechanical. It has to do with putting structures in place. I have another complaint about the bill. In the section on investor-state mechanisms, multinational corporations are still given an equal footing with states. That is beyond reprehensible. This is very serious because states must have the right to legislate in order to regulate and ensure the collective well-being of their citizens. As things currently stand, a multinational could sue a state for damages for interfering with its business. We must find a way to stop this, because it makes no sense. A lot of things make no sense.

One of the bill's last shortcomings concerns best practices, ethical practices and environmental protection practices. The bill seems like a series of good intentions that urge people and businesses to be careful and to follow best practices, but in no way obliges them to do so.

Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that this agreement is important. We are partners with Ukraine, and we will remain partners. It will also be important to contribute to rebuilding Ukraine, which I hope will happen soon, as soon as this horrible war is over. I think Quebec's expertise and businesses can play a part in the reconstruction.

During my speech, I talked a lot about helping others without hurting ourselves. Every now and then, I also want to make sure that people in this country get help. I must digress for a moment. Last week, we voted on a bill to increase old age pensions starting at age 65. Some representatives from FADOQ are visiting Parliament Hill today. I invite all parliamentarians to show some respect for these important people who are working to end social isolation. More importantly, I urge them to show some respect for people aged 65 to 74 who were shut out when the government created an unjustified form of discrimination based on age. This is very serious and has been going on for months. I do not understand why this has not been resolved. Let us fix this as soon as possible.

I look forward to answering my colleagues' questions.

World Milk Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today is World Milk Day, but I drink my milk every day just as I like it, because, frankly, milk is better under any circumstances.

Milk is a rich and tasty source of nourishment, proudly produced by people who continue to innovate, to produce more and better using less, people who are protecting our planet and our future. Milk is liquid gold.

I therefore invite all members of the House to enjoy this fantastic product. Let us do right by our farmers by passing Bill C‑282 quickly and protecting their wonderful model, so that we can always say “Never without my milk”. There is no need for moderation, because when it comes to milk, one glass is good but two is better.

To anyone with doubts, remember that it is worth crying over. I cannot imagine a better natural source of comfort.

In conclusion, milk is, and always will be, the best thing ever.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Shefford for her question.

This is an opportunity for me to talk about the farmers and families in Perth—Wellington, where we have the largest number of dairy farmers and chicken farmers in the country. Supply management is very important for me and for the people of Perth—Wellington.

I was very pleased to vote for Bill C-282, which is very important, but let us be clear: This bill is only a small part of a big concern for farmers and families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada.

50th Anniversary of Egg Farmers of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the egg farming families of Berthier—Maskinongé and Quebec, I would like to congratulate the Egg Farmers of Canada on its 50th anniversary.

I would also like to call attention to its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, as our egg farmers join the fight against climate change.

Our supply management system ensures that farmers have the income and capacity they need to reinvest in their operation when our market grows. It also promotes land use and food resilience. The more family farms there are, the more villages will flourish.

For the Egg Farmers of Canada, this 50th anniversary is a chance to spotlight innovative practices and effective management. To celebrate this anniversary, let us protect supply management by passing Bill C‑282. No gift could be more welcome.

Long live the Egg Farmers of Canada, and long live supply management.

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in relation to Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, on supply management.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

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?