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?

[Charles-Félix Ross]

My analysis of the situation is the same. The Senate committee's decision is extremely disappointing. Indeed, it has the effect of nullifying Bill C‑282, which we had pinned our hopes on. I want to mention that Canada is a signatory to more than 15 trade agreements with large groups of countries. Supply management has never hurt Canada's trade position in general, and that includes the agriculture and agri-food sector. As I said earlier in my presentation, we export $100 billion in products a year to 200 countries. Supply management is essential for poultry, egg and milk production. We need to protect them in Canada. This is a sensitive sector like many other sensitive sectors that are defended by our trading partners in their respective countries. We are really disappointed with the decision made by the Canadian senators. This shows a lack of respect for the vote of the members of the House of Commons, who were overwhelmingly in favour of the bill.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to move on to something else. We just learned something today. The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑282 to exclude supply management from all trade agreements. This bill received support from all parties in the House, but it has been held hostage by the Senate for a year and a half.

After being pressured several times, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade decided to start studying it, and it has just adopted an amendment that completely guts the bill. The amendment states that supply management will not be protected in future renewals of agreements such as CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and in current agreements such as the one with the United Kingdom. What is your reaction to what this Senate committee has done?

[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?

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

I thank Mr. Barlow for his comments. However, I don't interpret the paragraph in question in the same way at all. It explains that there have been concessions in the negotiation of the last three trade agreements. It doesn't say that we shouldn't trade and that trade isn't good for Canada—quite the opposite. All it says is that these concessions weaken one of the three pillars of supply management—import controls—and destabilize the system, which will eventually cease to function. If we took that away, we'd take away the argument that tells senators why they should pass this bill. I ask you to keep it. We can hold the vote, if you wish.

When we agreed to send a letter to the Senate about Bill C‑280, which I also think is very important, by the way, we added Bill C‑282 to it, and there was a consensus. So I think we could come to a consensus. If not, let's move on to the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're at time, Mr. MacGregor.

Thank you, Mr. Currie.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our round of questioning. Obviously, we're a little bit delayed, but I'm going to address the point that Mr. Perron raised.

I think it would be appropriate to release our witnesses.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I'd like to thank all the witnesses not only for their testimony, but also for the work they do to support agriculture across Canada.

Colleagues, very quickly, I wasn't in the chair last week, but I understand that on the advice of all parties on this committee, there were two letters drafted. One was on Bill C-280, which I have moved with your expediency. It is now going off to the Senate. On the advice of my vice-chair, as he and I discussed, all senators are going to be tagged on that, not just the Senate committee that is dealing with Bill C-280.

On Bill C-282, obviously, I did receive a bit more correspondence. I have the draft here. I just need some guidance because, ultimately, the letter in my name is a reflection of where this committee is at. You have all had the chance to review this letter. Are we good with sending this off to the Senate?

I see your hand, Mr. Barlow.

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

Thank you. You really are wonderful witnesses, you respect my speaking time.

Mr. Chair, I see myself obliged to use some of my speaking time to ask you a question.

Earlier, you mentioned the letter about Bill C‑280. At the same time, we had adopted the possibility of sending a letter about Bill C‑282, which I'd like to send.

Should we now hold the required discussion on this? Can we instead set aside time to do so at the end of the meeting out of respect for our witnesses?

[Keith Currie]

From that aspect, yes, Bill C-282 is a bill that involves supply management, which is a domestic production program. Certainly, by means of only producing products for domestic consumption, you're limiting transportation factors and you're producing food locally, so it's reducing your carbon footprint overall, so, yes, supply management certainly does that.

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

All right.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us. I'm sorry if you didn't hear my introduction. I'll try to proceed quickly, so please try to give me fairly brief answers.

Mr. Currie, earlier, a witness referred to Bill C‑282 as a problem for the environment. From my point of view, it could be positive, because it promotes local consumption and limits overproduction.

What's your opinion on this?

[Phil Dykstra, President, P & D Dykstra Farms Inc.]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for having me here.

I want to update you a little on what we're doing. I think you were briefed earlier—maybe last year—by the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board in terms of the situation on Ontario hog farms. You will be well aware that, 10 years ago, we lost Quality Meats. That has moved a lot of hogs to Quebec in the last couple of years. Olymel closed a couple of hog-packing plants, which has essentially dispersed Ontario hogs: 25,000 hogs a week are now being sent to other places, mostly to the U.S., while some go to Manitoba.

Anyway, the freight bill is significant. We're exporting into the U.S. ourselves, now. We feel there's been a loss of jobs and added value, and we also feel we're subject to trade and border risks as our live animals cross. We know we've seen trade action on live hogs. Probably every 10 to 12 years, we see something, whether it's MCOOL or anti-dumping, you name it. There are certainly going to be a lot of eyes on the presidential election next week to see how that plays out. Certainly, discussion around Bill C-282 and some of these things gives us pretty big concerns.

What has happened now is that a number of us primary producers—15—have joined together and purchased a small plant just outside of Arthur, Ontario, called Domingos Meat Packers. Domingos Meat Packers was a small provincial plant harvesting 1,900 hogs a week. We now have that business running up to 3,000 hogs a week. We are in the process of pushing dirt, pouring concrete, laying down footings and building a new federal plant just outside of Arthur, Ontario. The goal of this new federal plant will be to harvest, at its capacity, 12,000 hogs a week on a single shift. That, plus the small provincial plant, will bring us to a total of 15,000 a week. We have made a significant investment.

I'm the son of an immigrant farmer. I have a couple of sons farming with me. My wife and I are fortunate to have six grandchildren. God willing, a couple of them will stick around. However, this whole strategy is about sustainability, integrating our business and making sure we're relevant in years to come. Collectively, we put down $25 million of hard capital. We're in the process of drumming up more cash to put in, and we have leveraged Farm Credit Canada for a sizable loan. All of this is to invest in a new $60-million facility that will add value to our pork, reduce our transportation costs by $13 million and reduce our border risk. We're going to add 300 direct jobs in the area of Waterloo and create another 20 management positions. We are feeling pretty grateful and blessed that we can move ahead with a project like this, that we have been able to leverage some good people at Farm Credit Canada, and that we have a good place in Ontario to grow.

We still have a few more priorities that need some attention. We probably won't be able to get those done near-term. We're wondering if there are ways and means we can work together to build, perhaps, a water treatment plant, which would help us reduce the need for water and recycle water. We're looking at things like truck washes to minimize disease risk and enhance our biosecurity. We're in the process of setting up a training centre. We're likely going to need to invest about $500,000 to train people over the next three years, so there's a lot going on.

Anyway, I don't know how much time I have used. Everyone talks very fast at these meetings. It's pretty impressive. I'll just say that, if there are any questions afterwards, I will be happy to entertain them. I could talk about this all day.

Again, thanks for welcoming me here and letting me share this opportunity we're working on.

[Tyler Fulton]

Thank you.

Absolutely, the beef sector relies very heavily on export markets, on trade agreements. We export roughly 50% of our cattle, or beef, abroad. We are very focused on all aspects that could influence that, not the least of which is, for example, Bill C-282. That's a big concern to our industry. But we are also concerned about carbon border adjustments.

Specifically, you mentioned methane. What I can speak to is a protocol that is designed to allow ranchers and cattle producers to benefit if they can show a reduction in methane production. There are a lot of good, technological, advanced products that we can point to that actually help to reduce that, but it's important that those incentives are aligned with.... Producers can't afford to spend the money on that technology without somehow realizing a benefit.

In general, we identify the fact that we need to do our part, and that's why I would point to the grasslands and the fact that we use these natural environments that sequester carbon as our places of work, where we produce that beef. We have a great story to tell, and we can talk more about it.

[Gayle McLaughlin, Senior Manager, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thanks, Dave.

In regard to trade, the 2026 review of CUSMA looms large for our farmers. The U.S. is our largest export market, and Mexico is our third-largest export market, with exports valued at $8.6 billion for the former and $1 billion for the latter in 2023.

We have now heard clearly from both U.S. presidential candidates that they view 2026 as a renegotiation, not a review. Given this context and a new administration in Mexico, Canada should be prioritizing this agreement and ensuring that we do nothing domestically to antagonize this critical relationship. CCGA was in Washington, D.C., last week for the 33rd Tri-National Agricultural Accord and heard loudly that Bill C-282 will cause damage to our trading relationships and the CUSMA review, in particular with the U.S.

The CUSMA region will be even more important for our farmers given the significant trade challenges we will face with canola seed going to China, given our government's action on EVs and other imports. We exported five billion dollars' worth of canola to China in 2023.

In regard to Bill C-59, our sector needs clarity around this bill. Canadian farmers are among the most sustainable in the world, and part of our global competitiveness is being able to tell our story to a global audience. The intended and unintended consequences of the greenwashing provisions and the very low threshold for bringing forth a complaint raise serious concerns among farmers.

Finally, regarding business risk management, these tools are important to farmers and provide them with support when they face significant production or income losses. The risk profiles and priorities of today's farmers have changed compared to 20 years ago, when the basic design of these programs began. Closer collaboration with farmers and their associations is needed to ensure that these programs meet the needs of farmers now and into the future.

Thank you.

[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.

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

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Currie, you mentioned Bill C‑234 in your opening statement. At the beginning of the meeting, we talked about bills C‑280 and C‑282, and the trouble they're running into in the Senate. Bill C‑234 was reported back to the House with an amendment, but it still includes a grain drying exemption.

What do you want to say to the elected members of Parliament? Should we pass the bill as is or send it back to the Senate, knowing full well that it won't come back?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Looking at my colleagues, I think we're fine. Therefore, we'll do a letter on Bill C-280 and a letter on Bill C-282, with similar messages. There will be two different letters.

Thanks, colleagues. We appreciate everybody's congeniality on that. Now we will go to our business at hand.

I call the meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to order.

I will give a couple of reminders.

I know our witnesses have been here many times before, so this is probably a little redundant. The meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will show the person speaking, not the entire committee. Please don't take photos or screenshots.

To our witnesses, we've had some issues with feedback in the microphones, so please keep your earpieces as far away from the microphone as possible to ensure the safety of our interpreters.

I don't think I need to go through too much; I think everyone has been here before.

Mr. Perron, is this on this issue?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you.

I see pretty unanimous consent on Bill C-280, so I think we can move with that. The analyst can do that letter.

Do we want to put the letter on Bill C-282 to a vote? We could discuss this all day, but we do have some colleagues here who want to testify on this current study. Rather than debating this around the table, do we want to just have a vote on whether to do a similar letter for Bill C-282 that would go to the finance and banking committee?

Mr. Perron, do you feel that should be the way to go?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I was just wondering if Bill C-282 went through a different committee in the Senate than Bill C-280 did in the Senate. It does not make sense to comment on a bill that we did not see before this committee and urge the other chamber to pass something when we did not even talk about it here.

It is not that we are not supportive, but it just doesn't relate to this committee.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Bill C-282 went through another committee. I understand it for Bill C-280, bur not for Bill C-282. We have our votes in the House, but it didn't go through this committee. For us to send a letter on Bill C-282 would make less sense.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I agree on Bill C-280, but I'm also supportive of Monsieur Perron's suggestion that we should also include Bill C-282 in that. I think it's no secret that, obviously, we've had lots of supply-managed stakeholders come before committee in the past. It's related to ag. I think our ag committee should be united, in terms of putting pressure on the other chamber to pass the bill, as it is the will of the House. I'm supportive of Bill C-280 and Bill C-282.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Thank you, Mr. Perron.

The only caveat is that Bill C-282 did not go through this committee. Bill C-280 did go through the agriculture committee. That is the only difference.

If the Bloc wants to do that, you'd probably get support to do it. You may want it to come from the trade committee. I believe it went through that on the House side. That would be my only comment on that.

Are there any concerns?

Mr. Drouin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with your proposal. I also suggest that a letter be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding Bill C‑282. I think you follow the news. This bill is dragging its feet and is being kept in committee deliberately by a few individuals. I think that the elected members of the House must send clear messages when a bill is passed. As you said, only one person voted against Bill C‑280. In the case of Bill C‑282, 78% of the members of the House of Commons voted in favour.

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?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. White, I'm going to continue with you.

You just asked that we pass Bill C-234. The way to pass it quickly is to pass it in the form in which it came back from the Senate, to avoid it being sent back there, because we know it could spend a lot of time there, going by Bill C-282, which has been there for over a year. The Bloc Québécois supports the adoption of Bill C‑234 as is. I therefore call on my colleagues to pass it next week and bring it into force immediately.

Furthermore, how do we go about establishing regulations to improve performance? You talked about doing it through the World Trade Organization, and that makes a lot of sense.

That said, my concern is to take into account what has already been done. Let's take the example of a producer who uses no-till or already does crop rotation, compared to another producer who doesn't do that and uses more pesticides and herbicides. We know that some amount is necessary, but efforts can be made. How can we recognize what has already been done in Canada and Quebec in relation to foreign countries with which we do business? It's not an easy thing to do.

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.

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

I will now turn to supply management.

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

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

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

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Harvey]

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[Steve Verheul]

I mentioned a little earlier that in the review of CUSMA, it won't really that much impact, in my view, because Bill C-282, as you mentioned, talks about opening access. Every indication I've heard from the U.S. is that they're content with the access that was negotiated in the CUSMA. It's just about where that access goes and how the allocation of import quotas is done. Currently, it mostly goes to processors.

I've not heard that the U.S. is going after further tariff reductions or further tariff quota expansion, so I'm not sure it's going to be an issue.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I'm sure all witnesses are aware of a bill currently passing through the Parliament of Canada, Bill C-282, that bars the minister of trade from concluding any free trade agreement that results in opening access to the supply-managed sector. Basically, it makes supply management non-negotiable.

I'll start with you, Mr. Verheul, because of your background in the negotiations of many trade agreements that Canada has signed with many other countries.

Right now, it has passed second reading in the Senate. I was hoping it would die in the Senate, but apparently it's still alive in there, so it may even get passed and it may even get royal assent. If that bill becomes a reality, what impact do you think it will have during the review of CUSMA?

[Steve Verheul]

Well, I'm not sure it will be a significant concern for the U.S. in the current context, because both of the panels that they took against Canada had to do with allocation policies for quotas under the tariff rate quotas.

Bill C-282 talks about prohibiting increases in tariff rate quotas and reductions in tariffs. Those issues aren't really under discussion between Canada and the U.S. when it comes to the dairy concerns that the U.S. has. Their concerns are about the allocation policy. Setting aside what Bill C-282 may imply for other negotiations, I don't see it coming up in the review, because that's not the target of the U.S. at this point.

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

Mr. Verheul, I'm sure you're familiar with Bill C-282. It was passed by Parliament, but I'm certainly not a supporter of that piece of legislation. I think it's another trade irritant with the United States that could cause trouble in a CUSMA review. If that bill receives royal assent, do you see that as irritating our American trading partners as we get into this CUSMA review and something that they would raise in a renegotiation?

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

I would like to clarify that Bill C‑282 deals with the supply management system in general, not just the dairy sector.

In your presentation, you mentioned Bill C‑282, which is currently before the Senate. Are you calling for its swift passage before the CUSMA is reopened?

[Daniel Gobeil]

No. I would tell you that in the last three major free trade agreements, the one with the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and the CUSMA, the dairy sector conceded nearly 9%. Given the 18% concessions we're being asked to make right now, it's clear that this model is at the limit of what's acceptable, which is why it's so important to defend Bill C‑282 to limit dairy sector concessions.

[Daniel Gobeil, Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Wiens.

Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee, thank you.

I want to begin by acknowledging the support given by all parties to protect Canada's supply management system for many years.

As you know, concessions have been made. Mr. Wiens alluded to this. Canada's milk producers also thank you for the compensation that has been paid to producers.

However, there is no doubt that an agricultural model of concessions accompanied by compensation is not viable for us as entrepreneurs. It is in this sense that we must respect supply management.

We want to mention one thing: in addition to the 3.9% of the market that was conceded to the Americans, other important rules were requested, including a ban on Canada exporting any dairy products to all world markets. It's unique for an agreement between three countries to prohibit one of its signatories from exporting anywhere on the planet. At the moment, we're not hearing about a potential reopening of the market for three main products—skimmed milk powder, protein concentrates and infant formula—but, if there is a reopening and if Canada expresses an interest in such a reopening, it's obvious that the sector will have to take this very important element into account.

With that, thank you again. Bill C‑282 is still on the drawing board in the Senate committee.

Mr. Wiens and I are available to answer any questions you may have about this ongoing matter.

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?

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

In two and a half minutes of speaking time, I'm going to ask a short question, and if you are so inclined, Minister, you might give me a brief answer.

We're going to continue the discussion about the last answer that you gave me.

I am very pleased that you took the time to answer again towards the end of my comments and for saying that you were still requesting more funds. We won't be the only ones badgering the government for more funds. Thank you very much.

I have another question for you.

In your opening remarks, you spoke about supply, compensation and payments to adapt portions of the market. I'm sure you know that Bill C‑282, which was approved by your predecessor, Ms. Bibeau, is currently before the Senate.

I understood that you approved of it as well and that it is still part of your government's policy to ensure that there are no supply management bankruptcies, and that you would like this bill to be passed as quickly as possible.

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 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.

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

This is not like the digital services tax, on which we get letters from the ways and means committee, or with respect to Bill C-282. We've heard from many trading partners of their unhappiness with that bill. There are no trade implications, it would appear, with respect to this piece of legislation. Is that correct?

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 restrictive 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.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-282 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the third time and passed.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to close the debate at third reading of the bill.

I have five short minutes to hopefully try to convince the very few who are still uncertain about this bill. Here we are at the last step of a parliamentary process to pass my bill, Bill C-282. Today, during these five short minutes, I would like to speak from the heart and set aside the technical aspects of my previous speeches. I believe that everything has been said, and I see that the technical elements have been understood by many parliamentarians.

I rise with my heart filled with pride because my colleagues and I took a collaborative approach. We met with producers, consumers and processors. We got everyone from the agricultural sector involved. We took a non-partisan approach in the House. We really hope that the results will be almost unanimous. We hope to achieve as good a result as last time. There were 293 members who voted for the bill and 23 who were not convinced of the merits of the bill.

First of all, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the dedication, determination and expertise of my colleagues, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. They made vital contributions. I really think so. Their contributions were essential in getting the bill to this final vote stage, which is scheduled for Wednesday. I would also like to recognize the support shown by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has spoken in favour of Bill C-282 from the beginning and at every stage of the legislative process. It is quite rare to see a minister so openly involved from the outset in favour of a bill that is not a government bill.

Today the message is clear and unequivocal. Producers under the supply management system who help feed us must never again be tormented from being left wondering how badly they will be sacrificed on the altar of a free trade agreement. They have given enough. No amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheques, will make up for the permanent structural damage caused by the breaches contained in previous agreements. All countries exclude certain sectors of their production or products from all of their free trade agreements. When the Americans come to the negotiating table, there is no question of discussing sugar or cotton. The same goes for Japan and rice. Why, then, should we not do the same?

It is high time for us to not only protect the agricultural model, but to promote a balanced agricultural model that ensures the stability of our food autonomy and food security. That model must also guarantee product quality while reducing our ecological footprint. Supply management is logical. I would even go so far as to say it is “eco-logical”. The Bloc Québécois believes that there is room under the sun for everyone. We promote all agricultural models. They are not incompatible, they are complementary. All they need is effective marketing strategies.

It has been said before, but I will say it again: Supply management plays a crucial role in Quebec's regional economies and in the dynamic use of the land. In Montcalm, 87 farms are under supply management. When I travel around my constituency, I see well-structured rural communities practising farming on a human scale and anxious to keep it that way. Breathtaking landscapes emerge along the way.

I know that the die is cast. I urge the Senate to join all of us in the House who have come together on this bill and vote in favour of Bill C-282.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑282, which is fairly simple and fairly short. It provides an obligation to fully respect the supply management model. Every time that free trade agreements are negotiated, supply-managed producers lose market share and other sectors do not benefit.

I come from Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, a region of Quebec that is a pillar of the agricultural industry because of its location and climate. The region combines all the factors suitable for supporting a substantial agricultural industry. Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean features a wide range of agri-food products, ranging from blueberries to dairy. I will focus on the dairy industry.

Milk production is a vital economic driver for the region. The region currently has 244 farms and 2,151 jobs, making our dairy farmers proud. It is actually on their behalf that I am speaking today, as well as on behalf of the entire dairy industry, which has urged me to support Bill C‑282 because it affects them directly.

Only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry fall under supply management. This system is based on three main pillars.

The first pillar is supply management through quotas. That word comes up a lot when we talk about supply management. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to every province in Canada, which ensures price stability. I do not see a problem with that type of practice because it prevents waste and huge price differences.

The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that consumers can buy local without paying astronomical amounts. In the worst case scenario, a consumer will have to spend a few cents more for a local product made here under conditions we are familiar with. Since the standards vary widely from country to country, we are making sure that consumers can buy ethically and contribute to the regional economy without having to spend a lot.

Third, there is border control. This part makes it possible for the supply management model to prevent the local market from being overrun. This model allows producers to be competitive by supplying real milk. Take for example local milk that is full of vitamins and protein. Another milk might be diluted with water, which would mean that the same volume of milk would fill more cartons. That milk would be less expensive than the 100% milk that is sold here at home. A person on a tight budget, especially in an inflationary environment like the one we are in right now, would probably choose the second option; however, that milk would not come from Quebec, would not be local and would not contain all the proteins that it should.

Supply management helps to keep the three previously mentioned pillars in balance. It controls production, price and the border.

This model has been used in Quebec since it was first created in 1972. Every country in the world protects their products. That is not new. In Quebec, our supply-managed producers are the ones who need to be protected. The producers are unanimous on this and are calling for this bill to be passed.

This is a Bloc Québécois bill, which I recognize, but it is also the bill of milk, egg and poultry producers across Canada.

As I mentioned earlier, there are many family dairy farms in my riding. I am thinking in particular of Laiterie de La Baie, which was established in 1919 and since then has been handed down from one generation to the next. The values of support, solidarity and quality are part of the company's identity. Animal welfare is a consideration. The cows graze on grass in the summer and eat real hay during the winter. That is the type of farm that we want to encourage. I buy their milk all the time because it is the best and also because, as consumers, we must encourage our local producers.

Supply-managed agricultural sectors are key to the economic and social development of the regions. Let us not forget that. Supply management protects our workers' livelihoods. It ensures that our dairy, egg and poultry farms are not left to fend for themselves. Above all, it protects the integrity of the system. It is natural to have concerns about future agreements. Some even speak about having their hands tied or use the expression “showing their cards ahead of time”. However, some experts reassured the committee that it would not hobble the government, rather, it would strengthen it.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which studied Bill C-282. The committee even asked for additional meetings so that experts, as well as farmers from all walks of life, could share their concerns. The upshot is that farmers in Quebec are urging us to pass this bill. They need it. My job as a parliamentarian is to listen to what my constituents and what the entrepreneurs in my riding are telling me on the ground. The latest free trade agreements signed between Canada and other countries have made supply management a focal point.

The compensation offered by the government following agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, is never paid out fast enough. Investment programs take too long, and farmers end up getting their cheques too late. Farmers and processors no longer want compensation. They want things to be done more efficiently to begin with.

We know that nothing happens fast enough under these Liberals. Timelines are extremely long. The Conservatives are supporting farmers and producers so that families can eat high-quality local products. This bill is necessary because governments have chipped away at the system over the years. The compensation provided by the government is no longer enough. Supply management must be protected, which is exactly what Bill C-282 does. The vitality of our rural regions depends on supply management. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I wholeheartedly support Bill C-282.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the third time and passed.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-282.

Seven years ago, U.S. President Barack Obama visited Ottawa and addressed parliamentarians in the House of Commons. There was one line from his speech that received a standing ovation and was in all the news stories that night. He said, “the world needs more Canada.”

The reason President Obama words received a standing ovation was because he was right; the world does need more Canada. The world needs more softwood lumber from B.C., more cod from Newfoundland and Labrador and more of everything from everywhere in between.

Unfortunately, Bill C-282 marks a significant departure from President Obama's positive outlook for Canada and instead represents a much more inward-looking and isolationist future.

Canada has always been a trading nation. Over the past 40 years, Canadian governments had negotiated 15 free trade agreements with 51 different countries. It is important to note that these free trade negotiations were signed, ratified and implemented under both Liberal and Conservative governments. This team Canada approach has served Canadians well by giving our free trade negotiators the flexibility they need to negotiate a deal that is in the best interest of Canada.

Unfortunately, Bill C-282 proposes to take supply management off the table in future free trade negotiations. It will handcuff our free trade negotiators and limit their ability to negotiate a deal that is in the best interest of all Canadians.

This is exactly the warning that was made to parliamentarians at the international trade committee when its members heard from our lead trade negotiators, both when the bill was being studied at committee as well as an identical bill in the previous Parliament.

Doug Forsyth, director general at Global Affairs Canada in charge of market access and trade development, said the following:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

Mr. Forsyth's concerns were echoed by his colleague, Mr. Aaron Fowler, the chief agriculture negotiator. Mr. Fowler actually went a step further and added, “In some cases, the country may determine that they do not want to go forward with an FTA with Canada in the absence of Canada's being able to make commitments in this sector.”

Given that these warnings are coming from Canada's actual free trade negotiators, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to take them seriously and to not go down the path of handcuffing our negotiators in future negotiations.

Take, for example, the government's lndo-Pacific strategy, which it announced last fall. In this document, the government outlines its plans to negotiate free trade agreements with both India and the ASEAN nations of South-East Asia. India has a population of 1.4 billion people, and the ASEAN nations have a combined population of over 600 million people. That represents a combined total of over two billion potential customers for Canadian exporters. That sounds like a great opportunity for Canada. However, I cannot help but wonder if Canada's negotiators have to take supply management off the table, then what sectors will India and the ASEAN countries take off the table as well? What opportunities in these markets of two billion people will be lost to Canadian exporters?

One also has to consider our trade relationship with our two closest neighbours in North America, the United States and Mexico. One may be tempted to say that because Bill C-282 would apply to new free trade agreements only, and since Canada already has a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, then there is nothing to worry about. However, it is important to remember that the current NAFTA agreement has a sunset clause, which any of the three countries could invoke if they were unhappy with the current deal and would like to renegotiate it from scratch. If this sunset clause were invoked, Canada could be left without a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico as early the year 2036.

Again, that raises the question. If we sit down with the Americans and the Mexicans 13 years from now to renegotiate NAFTA, and if Canada’s supply managed sectors are off the table from the outset, then what sectors will the U.S. and Mexico take off the table as well? Which Canadians will no longer be able to export to the United States and Mexico because of Bill C-282? Will it be New Brunswick lobster fishermen? Will it be assembly line workers in Ontario’s electric car factories? Who?

I know that I would not want to go home to Saskatchewan and tell farmers and ranchers, potash and uranium miners that their jobs no longer exist because they can no longer export to the United States. I am sure there is not a single parliamentarian in this chamber who would like to have that sort of conversation with exporters in their ridings either.

Therefore, what do we do about supply management when it comes to future free trade negotiations? If a farmer works in one of the supply-managed sectors, and owns quota, and has played by the rules, and if a future free trade agreement reduces the value of that asset, then that farmer should be compensated for his or her loss. That compensation should be clear, complete, spelled out in black and white, and it should be paid out in a timely manner.

While every country has sectors that it seeks to protect in free trade negotiations, no country has enshrined into law what its negotiators can and cannot talk about with other countries. With an open economy that is largely based on exports, we should not be making Canada an outlier on the world stage.

Just about all of the speakers to the bill have extolled the virtues of supply management and the people who work in those sectors. I have no doubt that workers in these sectors are good people who deserve a fair shake in free trade agreements. However, sooner or later someone has to ask about the 99% of Canadians who do not work in a supply-managed sector.

What about other farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods depend on exports? What about Canadian workers who work in export-based industries other than agriculture? What about all the Canadian consumers who drive a car that was built in Germany, or use a smart phone that was built in South Korea or who just enjoy a bottle of French wine with their dinner? All of these Canadians benefit from free trade agreements that are the result of countless hours of work by our free trade negotiators, without having their efforts hindered by Bill C-282.

I would like to conclude with another quote from President Obama’s 2016 address to Parliament. He said, “the benefits of trade and economic integration are sometimes hard to see or easy to take for granted, and the very specific dislocations are obvious and real. There’s just one problem: Restricting trade or giving in to protectionism in this 21st century economy will not work.” That statement also received a standing ovation.

The world does need more Canada, not less. Bill C-282 is a step in the wrong direction and I encourage all parliamentarians to vote against it.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the third time and passed.

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Minister. To you and to all your officials, thank you for joining us today.

I also want to stay on the subject of supply management. My colleague Monsieur Perron asked about Ukraine. I want to ask about future trade deals. India, of course, looms large right now. India has indicated very publicly through its high commissioner to Canada that agriculture is going to be a big thing.

Now, at the same time, Parliament is in the middle of debating a private member's bill, Bill C-282, which is going to put in force and effect a legislative firewall on the ability of the Department of Foreign Affairs to negotiate on tariff rate quotas. I think that's there because Parliament's trust, at least on the opposition side, was broken three times by your government, if I'm speaking frankly, through three successive trade deals. Yes, you can talk about the compensation, but on that third pillar of supply management—import controls—some things were given away there.

Minister, Bill C-282 still has a little bit of a journey ahead of it. It does need to go through the Senate before it receives royal assent, and you have that legislative constraint in place. In the meantime, if the trade deal with the Indo-Pacific region, with India specifically, marches ahead at a pretty rapid pace, can we have your assurance that supply management is not going to be on the table and that you're not going to take advantage of the time between now and when Bill C-282 comes into force and effect?

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

Quickly, I wanted to speak to the Canadian American Business Council.

Bill C-282 is a supply management bill that is excluding supply management from trade agreements. Do you think that would make it easier or more difficult to resolve trade irritants with the United States, such as softwood lumber and potential COOL, country of origin labelling, on beef?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I missed your introductory statements. I was speaking to a bill, Bill C-282, on supply management, but I want to talk to the Canadian Pork Council about the non-tariff barriers that are going on within CETA.

We talk about robust dispute resolution mechanisms, but it seems to me that something's wrong. Either the dispute resolution mechanisms within CETA are not robust enough or the government has been too slow in getting those dispute resolution mechanisms up and running.

My understanding is that this has been going on for—I don't know—six years with respect to the phytosanitary issues with beef and pork. I'm wondering if you can let us know where you think the problem is.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I would like to place on the record my appreciation for the Canadian agricultural industry, which is so well represented here. We are well placed in the world. Canada is the fifth-largest exporter of total agricultural produce and agri-food products.

Mr. Roy, I understand the frustration of the pork exporters to the U.K. and Europe. While I want that to be resolved, I personally am not in favour of your suggestion that we try retaliatory tariffs. Though it has worked, in my view it more often than not doesn't bring you to an easy solution.

Mr. Greenwood, I'll come back to you later, if I have time, on your opinion about Bill C-282. In my opinion, it's bad legislation for Canada as a country that promotes free trade. I would like your opinion later on whether it affects Canada-U.S. trade relations, especially in the dispute resolution mechanisms before CUSMA is up for renegotiation.

First, though, I would like to go to you, Mr. Walker and Mr. Davison. I understand the problems. You've explained them. I want to know if there are any shortcomings in the dispute resolution mechanisms that we have today. Is there anything we can modify or tweak in the approach that the industry bodies and the government take to adjust the non-tariff barriers that we have seen in different parts of the world?

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, not only as the NDP's agriculture critic but also as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and for all of the supply-managed farms in my beautiful riding to offer my full-throated support of Bill C-282. Just as a quick review for people to catch up, this bill is seeking to amend the existing statute, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

A quick reminder is that the act, in one of its important sections, spells out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For example, the act specifies that the minister conduct all diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of Canada and foster the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce, etc. Bill C-282 would add a new clause into that act to specify that the minister must not make any commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada that would have the effect of increasing the tariff rate quota or reducing the tariff that is applicable to goods in that category, which are two very important aspects. I will lay out reasons why.

First of all, I want to say that I am proud to be a member of a party that has long stood by our supply-managed farmers and continues to do so up to this day. We absolutely recognize that supply management as a system protects our family farms and our rural communities and protects and promotes hundreds of thousands of jobs. Its economic impact in communities like mine is huge. It rests on three pillars; I have heard the expression “the three-legged stool”. Of course, we know that with a three-legged stool, if one is to affect any one of the legs the whole system collapses and they are all necessary to stand up and maintain the system.

Those three pillars are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. Under supply management, we have a national marketing agency that determines the production amounts for each commodity and sets production quotas for each of our provinces. We also know that our supply-managed producers are guaranteed a minimum price for their products. Those provincial marketing boards allow them to negotiate the minimum farm gate prices with the processors of their products.

The third pillar, which is the key theme of today's discussion, is import control. The way we regulate import control is through tariffs on foreign imports. Tariffs are applied whenever foreign imports in a supply-managed sector exceed the allowable quantity and then they are subject to a massive tariff that essentially makes them uncompetitive. For each of our main products, whether in dairy, eggs, poultry or turkey, successive trade deals have whittled away at that important pillar and now we do allow import of some foreign products in each of those categories up to a certain amount, after which they are subjected to a high tariff.

The system has proven itself time and time again over decades of use. It offers important stability for producers, processors, service providers and retailers. It allows our federal and provincial governments to avoid subsidizing those sectors directly. That is in strict contrast to our competitors both in the United States and in the European Union.

I need to underline this point: Supply management protects the taxpayer because we avoid subsidizing the industry. It allows farmers in those sectors to actually make a good income and to innovate and invest in their respective farms. That is in stark contrast to the wild price fluctuations we have seen south of the border in the United States, in particular, where overproduction has led to dire economic circumstances for many of the farms, particularly in the dairy sector. The same goes for the European Union. That is where taxpayer funds are used to directly subsidize those industries. That is in stark contrast to the system that we have here in Canada whereby supply management allows the system to survive without that direct intervention.

I know some of the criticisms out there. We have heard it time and time again, particularly from the OECD, which has said that supply management stifles innovation. However, we know that is not true.

In many of the farms I have visited in my own riding, particularly the dairy operations, the technology in use in those operations is state of the art. It is that way because the farmers who operate those systems have had the guaranteed income and they know they can make the investment by betting against future incomes. They have been able to innovate, they have been able to invest; they have been able to make their operations world class and the envy of many nations around the world.

I talked about the economic impacts. I referenced the economic impacts in my own riding. If we look country-wide, for example, in 2021, Canada had 9,403 dairy farms. Production and processing of dairy products contributes to 221,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP every single year. The same year for poultry and egg farms, we had 5,296 farms. Production and processing of poultry and eggs contributes more than 100,000 jobs and over $8.5 billion to Canada's GDP. Therefore, the economic impact of this sector is significant and it matters to many communities.

Now, let us look at how Bill C-282 fared at the international trade committee. I do want to take time to recognize my fellow NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, who helped shepherd that bill through committee on my behalf. That was some great work on his part to get the bill to this stage. That committee had six meetings. About 45 witnesses came forward and testified. As a result of that testimony there were a number of amendments proposed to the bill. None were successful, so ultimately the version of the bill that we see before us today is the same that the House gave voice to at second reading.

I want to outline some of the testimony that we heard at committee because I have heard other members reference this.

One of the important testimonies that we heard was from Mr. Tom Rosser, who is the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. He said:

The Government of Canada is working hard to ensure that the supply management system remains strong and that producers and processors operating in the system remain productive and sustainable.

Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations, and as such is fully consistent with existing policy.

We had Mr. Keith Currie, someone I have become very familiar with and worked with over the years. He is now, of course, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He said:

Canada's three most recent trade agreements have had a considerable impact on supply-managed farm families and the system that supports them. It's our hope this new legislation will encourage Canada's negotiators to look to other negotiating strategies that do not place one agriculture sector against another, and instead focus our energy on issues that unite us, such as reducing non-tariff trade barriers.

The interesting thing about this bill as I wrap up here, is that the vote on sending the bill back to the House was an interesting one because both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses were split. We had the Liberal member for Nepean vote against sending this bill back to the House and we had a Conservative member from Oshawa and a Conservative member from Dufferin—Caledon also vote against sending this bill back to the House. It is interesting to see the splits that exist in both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses. I am very curious to see the final vote on this bill when we come to third reading.

I understand, of course, that there were a number of objections raised to the bill about this being a non-tariff trade barrier, that it constrains Canada's ability to negotiate the best possible deal, but I will again say this. We have been let down successively three times back in the 42nd Parliament. I was there. Despite the government's promises that it was fully in support of supply management, threes successive trade deals undermined that important pillar of import control. I see this bill as just pretty much a legislative guarantee that, despite a government's best intentions and words, this bill is going to insert a legislative guarantee in an important act to ensure that our supply management sectors enjoy that solid protection.

With that I will conclude and again reiterate that New Democrats will support this bill. I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for bringing it forward. I look forward to seeing its successful passage to the other place.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-282. On the Conservative side, we absolutely support supply management. We always have been.

In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, there are many supply-managed farms, both in dairy and, of course, in eggs and poultry. I take the opportunity to visit those farms on a regular basis. The last break week, I visited dairy farms in my riding and I talked about the bill and the incredible contributions that they made not just to my riding of Dufferin—Caledon but all across Canada.

That being said, I really do have concerns with respect to the bill and a big part of it is that the bill has turned into a gigantic wedge issue with all the rest of the folks in the agriculture sector. Every agricultural sector outside of supply management has said it does not support the bill. These people are concerned about what the repercussions will be to their sector in any future trade agreement.

Why are they thinking that? When we take something off the table in a negotiation, then our negotiating partner will automatically take something off the table as well. If we are taking supply management off, and that is something our negotiating partner is interested in, it will take something off the table that Canada is interested in, and we end up with trade agreements that are less ambitious, less broad in scope and therefore have less economic prosperity for Canadians.

This is an example of who came to the committee to say they supported supply management. There are agricultural colleagues, our friends and neighbours, who are against this bill, such as the Canola Council of Canada; the Canadian Canola Growers Association; the International Cheese Council of Canada; the National Cattle Feeders' Association; the Canadian Cattle Association; CAFTA, which is the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance; Cereals Canada; just to name a few. They have all said that they think this bill will damage their opportunities to export their products around the world. They spoke very forcefully against the bill at committee.

What the bill has accomplished, to a large extent, is to pit one farmer against another, and that is truly unfortunate.

Government officials have also spoken against the legislation. When the bill was before the previous parliament it was Bill C-216, and there were several questions that were asked with respect to it. I will quote one section.

Mr. Doug Forsyth said:

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada right out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie...

That is exactly the concern I have raised. Canada is a free-trading nation. We rely on free trade, as 60% to 70% of our GDP comes from trade. We are a trading and exporting nation, and agricultural products are a huge bedrock of our exports. When every other agricultural sector is saying that it is concerned about what this is going to do with respect to its ability to export its products around the world and in negotiations for other free trade agreements, we should listen.

One of the things I tried to accomplish at committee was to have extra meetings to have trade experts come to say what they thought the impact of the bill would be with respect to negotiating future trade agreements, and the committee received letters from trade experts.

This is a snippet from a letter from Robert de Valk, who said:

Remember what Canada had to pay in 1989 to keep supply management off the table when the Canada-US Trade Agreement (CUSTA) was completed – increased access. Now all our trading partners can rightfully ask for compensation. The bill, unfortunately, may have the unintended consequence of putting the supply management sector in focus early in any future negotiations.

When we talk about future negotiations, our free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, is under review at six years. We are three years away from that. With this bill passing, what happens if the United States says that it wants some additional access in supply managed industries? Under this bill it would be absolutely impossible. Then what happens? Are we going to blow up our entire free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico because of this legislation? These are the unintended potential consequences of the legislation.

At committee, I also asked government officials if we would have been able to successfully renegotiate NAFTA, which became CUSMA, if supply management was off the table? This was the answer, “Madam Chair, I was not a part of the negotiating teams for either of those negotiations. However, the stated policy of the Canadian government during both of those negotiations was that“ supply management was off the table and that they would “make no concessions. Therefore, having ultimately determined that such concessions were necessary, I can only conclude that failing to do so would have put the deal at jeopardy.”

This is what we would be looking at if we pass legislation like this. We are potentially putting other trade deals at jeopardy with respect to one sector of the Canadian economy. I find this absolutely troubling.

However, if we take away the challenges with future deals and if we take away the challenges with the review of CUSMA, or USMCA, whatever we want to call it, those are big, extraordinary challenges as a result of this.

Let us look at it in a broader context. Our largest trading partner is the United States, with 70% of our trade going to the United States. We have two major trade irritants with the United States right now.

First, on softwood lumber, $8 billion worth of duties have been collected as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. This has been going on for eight years, with no progress at all on resolving it.

Second, country of origin labelling for beef is percolating in the United States again. It would have devastating impacts for Canadian cattle.

If we go to the United States and say that we want to try to resolve these things, I think it will say, especially with beef, that we have just protected an entire swath of our agricultural sector and it will want to know why the United States can not go forward with its country of origin labelling.

The bill would give the United States a hammer to hit us with in negotiations, to try to resolve the trade irritants that we have now. These are the unintended consequences of passing this legislation.

We can support supply management without the legislation. Our country has done it. In all the free trade agreements we have around the world, there is only a couple where access has been granted on supply management. When that access was granted, Canadian producers were compensated financially.

When we look at the statistics on farm gate proceeds, for example, with respect to dairy, actual production of milk has gone up despite access that has been granted. Therefore, farm gate receipts have gone up despite access being granted.

If access is granted, we could compensate those who are affected. Also, because the Canadian population is growing, the Canadian economy is growing, so they still produce more, sell more and make more money. The system as it is exists very well. It is not, as we keep hearing, the first thing on the negotiating table in a free trade agreement. It is the absolute last thing. It is the only thing that would get done, because if we did not, we could not get a deal.

Imagine, if this bill was in place when we were trying to renegotiate NAFTA with the United States and the United States demanded more access in supply management. It is very interested in it, because we have disputes under USMCA with respect to how it applies tariff-reduced quota in the dairy sector. We know it is important to the United States. We would not have a deal, and government officials very clearly said that.

The intention of the bill is good. We should protect supply management. I understand why farmers are nervous and frustrated, because the government has not negotiated good deals, like CPTPP. The original TPP granted less access in supply management. The Liberal government came along and gave up so much more in CPTPP. However, the bill would have unintended consequences that would not be good for Canada and the Canadian economy.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Montcalm has provided me to once again reaffirm the government's support for Canada's supply management system and for this important bill. I want to start by thanking the member for Humber River—Black Creek for reporting the bill back to the House following its review at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

In conducting its review of the bill, the committee heard from over 40 witnesses and received 15 written briefs. The committee heard substantial evidence that Canada's supply management system is a model of stability. It provides a fair price for farmers, stability for processors and high-quality products for consumers, Canadians, and has done so for over 50 years. Numerous witnesses expressed how supply management is a pillar of rural prosperity. It sustains farming families and rural communities.

The great contribution of supply-managed sectors to our economy is undeniable. In 2021, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated almost $13 billion in farm-gate sales and accounted for over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities.

This government has consistently reaffirmed our unwavering support for Canada's supply management system, including in the context of international trade agreements. This support was clearly demonstrated during the negotiation of the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. Canada faced significant pressure to dismantle the supply management system, and I cannot stress enough how hard we had to resist and defend it, and defend it we did. Despite this intense pressure, we succeeded in ensuring that all three pillars of the supply management system remain firmly in place: production controls, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

More recently, we demonstrated our support for Canada's supply management system during the negotiation of the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, which did not include any new access for cheese or other supply-managed products, despite significant pressure from the United Kingdom.

Moreover, the government has publicly committed, and I stress this, to not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. This policy has been clearly and publicly stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Looking into the future, Bill C-282 makes our commitment to continue to preserve, protect and defend all three pillars of Canada's supply management system even stronger.

Furthermore, the government believes that ensuring greater involvement of the public, stakeholders and parliamentarians in Canada's trade agenda strengthens the defence and promotion of our broader economic interests, including supply-managed sectors. As such, we have increased transparency in the conduct of trade negotiations and we have enhanced reporting obligations to Parliament for all new trade agreements. In November 2020, we updated the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament to provide additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new trade agreements.

Furthermore, our government will continue to preserve, protect and defend our supply management system in the context of any challenge by our trading partners. We are confident that we, Canada, are fully compliant in the implementation of our trade obligations, and we will vigorously defend our interests.

Let me reiterate the government's unequivocal commitment to maintain supply management as a pillar of strong and sustainable rural prosperity into the future. This matters. It matters to Canadian farmers. It matters to Canadian farmers in my region of Windsor—Essex.

We have tens of thousands of workers who work to drive our agricultural sector. Whether it is greenhouses or on the farms, this is absolutely critical to my region and also to Canadian farmers from coast to coast to coast. It is also important to Canadians. This is the foundation, as we heard today, of Canada's food security.

Bill C-282 is aligned with our commitment. For this reason, we support it. The government is fully committed to defending the integrity of supply management, while also continuing to pursue an ambitious trade agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for the honourable mention. Of course, I look forward to offering my full support to this bill. I am really glad that during his remarks he talked about the three pillars of supply management. I was with him in the 42nd Parliament when we saw one of those pillars, import controls, systemically undermined by three successive trade deals. I would like my hon. colleague to expand on how, after all those promises to defend supply management, Bill C-282 is a legislative guarantee to really show that supply management is now being protected in law, because we can no longer trust the word of government as we have been let down three times in the past.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved that Bill C‑282 be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, on June 13, 2022, I introduced Bill C‑282. In a month, it will be one year. On November 16, 2022, I delivered my introductory speech at first reading. On February 7, 2023, I delivered my final reply to conclude the debate at second reading and on February 8, the result of the vote was the following: 293 for, 23 against. That is what we call a resounding majority.

With that vote, parliamentarians in the House signalled to supply managed farmers that they would never again be sacrificed at the altar of free trade. The government was finally going to walk the talk. I felt confident that this bill would be passed by the end of the session. Was I being overly optimistic? Time will tell.

There was just committee work left. When a party wants to hold up a bill, it can filibuster. That is what representatives from the Conservative Party quietly did in committee.

The bill contains one clause. If we agree with the principle, the clause in question does nothing but implement its intention. Simple, accurate, concise, this bill gets straight to the point. It adds to the mandate of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the obligation to fully respect supply management by removing the minister’s ability to negotiate these principles in future international trade negotiations.

The minister will therefore be unable to sign a treaty that would have the effect of increasing the tariff rate quota applicable to products subject to supply management or reducing the applicable tariff when imports exceed the applicable tariff rate quota.

What impact will Bill C-282 have in concrete terms? The first commitment the government makes in negotiating a treaty is signing it. By signing the treaty, it indicates that it is satisfied with the text and commits, and I am using the word “commits” deliberately, to do what is necessary for it to be implemented.

By preventing the government from signing, should there be any breaches of supply management, Bill C-282 prevents it from introducing an implementation bill allowing for the treaty’s ratification and entry into force. Unless the matter returns to Parliament during the negotiations and before the treaty is signed and Parliament is requested to amend the law, supply management is completely protected.

Basically, with Bill C-282, supply management is taken off the bargaining table from the outset. It is a powerful tool to increase Canada’s bargaining power in trade negotiations. This bill does not disarm the government. On the contrary, it strengthens it.

Let us keep in mind that Bill C-282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively by undermining the integrity of its constituent principles, namely, price, production and border controls.

For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, supply management is a key strategic tool for preserving our food self-sufficiency, regional development and land use. I will get back to this later. It is also a Canada-wide risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations.

The system is based on three major principles, three pillars. I am convinced that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé will talk about his three-legged stool.

The first pillar is supply management through a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to each of the provinces, which, through their marketing boards or producer associations, sell these quotas to their own producers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand.

The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.

The third pillar is border control, and that is where fair trade agreements and the successive breaches that producers have had to deal with come in.

Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. Indeed, for almost a decade, the price of milk in the U.S. has been plummeting, and small U.S. farms are no longer able to cover their production costs. This price level is usually attributed to overproduction. Each year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, more than 100 million gallons were thrown away. In 2018, Wisconsin lost more than 500 farms a week.

Of course, there is another argument that could be made against Bill C-282. Some people might think that since producers and processors have finally been compensated, sometimes after waiting more than four years, and are satisfied, concessions can be made from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards.

Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the free trade agreements. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain. That is important.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements?

The answer is yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. Every country in the world protects its sensitive products. It is true for the U.S., with its sugar and cotton. It is true for Japanese rice. It is also true for Europe. It is not against the WTO’s rules, so let us do it.

Bill C-282 is not partisan, and neither is my approach in defending and promoting it. We simply needed to enshrine in law the good intentions repeated in Parliament for years.

During each trade negotiation, the House was unanimous in insisting that we keep the supply management system. It did so on November 22, 2005, in its negotiations with the WTO. It did so on September 26, 2017, in its renegotiation of NAFTA. It did so on February 7, 2018, this time for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP. In every case, the House was unanimous, which means that government members, both Conservative and Liberal, agreed.

After that, things went awry. In the case of the CPTPP, CUSMA, or the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and CETA, or the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the government ended up partioning off parts of the marker. That is why we came up with Bill C-282 after Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper.

Although the Bloc Québécois is introducing this bill, it is not ours alone. It expresses the will of most parliamentarians. It expresses the will of our farmers, especially Quebec's supply-managed farmers, but also those all across Canada who have adopted this system.

In fact, I know that they are listening to us, and I would like to say hello. This bill is theirs as much as it is ours.

Along with my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I went to meet our producers and consumers. We found an agriculture sector that was more mobilized and optimistic than ever, convinced that we would succeed, and determined to defend and promote supply management at all costs.

We also met people who want to keep the supply management system because it has proven to be effective in terms of food autonomy and food security, especially so during the pandemic. Consumers see that they have access to sufficient, high-quality supplies at competitive prices. They want to shorten the distance between farm and table. They want farms run by people and not megafarms that run on overproduction and waste. I repeat that 100 million gallons are thrown out in the U.S. It is inconceivable.

In fact, if U.S. producers want to return to a supply management system, it is because their model based on overproduction favours only megaproducers and they are losing farms run by actual people, meaning that quality goes out the window. Do we want milk full of hormones from megafarms?

Consumers see the beneficial impact of supply management on sustainable agriculture, land use and the regional economy. Our producers deserve not to feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability. They want to be able to plan for the future, ensure their succession and maintain their quality standards. Is that too much to ask?

In conclusion, Bloc Québécois members are team players. Protecting and promoting supply management and the result of the vote on third reading are not only the work of the member for Montcalm. I want to point out the remarkable work and dedication of my colleague and friend, the member for Berthier-Maskinongé. I would also like to point out the excellent work of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He did a remarkable job in committee as spokesperson for international trade. Let us say that he honed his patience at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I must also mention the unconditional support of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus, who not only stand behind me, but also and especially beside all supply-managed agricultural producers. At the end of this debate at third reading, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the rest of the NDP support Bill C‑282. I thank the Minister of Agriculture for her unequivocal support and, by extension, that of her government. This type of support is invaluable. There is still some doubt among the 23 Conservatives who voted against Bill C‑282 in principle on second reading. I take nothing for granted, but time is of the essence.

All we need is another election for Bill C‑282 to suffer the same fate as Bill C‑216. This bill needs to be studied by the Senate, and could be delayed by senators who want to imitate the Conservative members who delayed the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑282 in committee. Let us remain optimistic and assume that, considering what a majority there is in the House, our wise Senate will make the right choice.

The time has come to act. Every country protects the key sectors of its economy before engaging in free trade negotiations.

After all the motions that have been unanimously adopted by the House and all the expressions of good faith, followed by all the broken promises by successive governments of all stripes, if we truly respect the farmers who feed us, we have to put our words into action and pass Bill C-282, to ensure that not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Aaron Fowler]

Thank you for the question.

If the United States has concerns with respect to Bill C-282 or its impact on Canada's ability to engage on issues affecting supply management, it will not wait for the occasion of negotiations on softwood lumber to bring those concerns to our attention.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr. Fowler.

Mr. Fowler, you mentioned that discussions are going on, but there's no indication when the negotiations can begin. Hopefully sooner or later the negotiations should start. When the negotiations start, do you expect that Bill C-282, if the bill passes and it becomes legislation, will affect the negotiations?

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

Thank you very much.

I want to quickly switch gears to talk about the country-of-origin labelling that's percolating in the United States. We know that these are draft regulations and that they are voluntary, but it's a significant issue, I think, for Canadian beef.

Do you think that the passage of Bill C-282, which, I take it, will not be well received in the United States, will make this non-tariff trade barrier more difficult to resolve with the United States?

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

I have no more questions. I will simply thank witnesses for their answers. It was quite interesting.

They are right, except when they condemn Bill C‑282. Everything else was quite relevant.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kingston.

If I could go to Mr. Laird, in your comments you mentioned our investment protections, that the dispute resolutions within free trade agreements are too defensive; they don't properly support our companies. For example, you mentioned that protection for foreign investment within CUSMA no longer exists, where it did under the NAFTA.

How key is it for Canada to get that back into a revised CUSMA? Will things such as passing Bill C-282, which protects supply management, make it more difficult for this to happen because our trading partners could see this as a trade irritant?

[Will Lowe]

In regard to veterinarians, I think a lot of this stuff goes back to some of the issues we had with COVID and with border issues at some of our ports. It has become a labour issue on the veterinary side. It's to no one's surprise that veterinarians here in western Canada and across the country are harder and harder to.... We're putting fewer graduates through college, and we're seeing older veterinarians in Canada retire. I'm thinking that the situation is similar in the U.S.

For a time, we had BSE issues. That was from 2003 until now, with the negligible risk status change that happened last year. That was 20 years in the making from our first BSE case. That issue is very slowly rectifying itself.

On Bill C-282, we see it as an impediment. It just throws up another irritant to the U.S. It's protecting one industry at the expense of other industries. We see protecting supply management as one of those things that becomes a trade irritant, especially when we're looking at the potential for another country of origin labelling protectionism non-tariff trade barrier in the United States.

We're asking the United States to not implement country of origin labelling. We've gone through this numerous times in the last 20 years. Canadians have always won those cases, but then we go and introduce Bill C-282, which protects one industry over another. We highlight an issue but the U.S. can say, “We're looking at country of origin labelling, but you're protecting your industries as well.”

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

In the theme of the government's bringing in legislation without really consulting recently, I'd like to talk to Mr. Lowe with the National Cattle Feeders' Association.

You're probably aware of Bill C-282 and the criticism that there wasn't enough consultation. I was wondering if you could comment on this bill being a potential trade barrier.

Also please elaborate a little bit. You mentioned the veterinarian situation between Canada and the U.S. You'd think that we'd be able to get that one figured out. Could you let us know the status of this dispute between Canadian and U.S. veterinarians and what it means for the market here for Canadians and the costs?

[Dave Carey]

Yes.

In short, I think years from now, if Bill C-282 does pass, countries and parliamentarians around the world will be discussing Canada in the same way that we're discussing the U.K. and India, because we've legislated out a massive part of our sector as opposed to negotiating. In making sure supply management gets a deal that's protected, Bill C-282 will be viewed internationally by our trading partners as a trade irritant. It will also impact future WTO negotiations around agriculture for sure.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

They ultimately pay the price. Thank you for that.

I'd like to go now to the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and Mr. Carey.

You talked in your presentation about some of the trade barriers that exist. You talked about direct government support, in essence, and most people would think monetary support, government policies, a regulatory approach. However, we recently reviewed Bill C-282 here. What it would do is preclude discussions of our supply-managed sectors when the Canadian government undertakes new trade negotiations.

CUSMA is up for renewal in the next couple of years. We're currently working on a Canada-U.K. trade agreement. We've just had the U.K. accession to the CPTPP.

Do you see this as a trade irritant that is just waiting to happen?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I guess I didn't ask my question very well. If we solve the quota situation, would you be in a situation of having a good, thriving business and have Bill C-282—

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have just one more question about cheese.

You briefly mentioned Bill C-282, which we have obviously discussed at this committee, and your concerns with it. You have these other concerns about the TRQ, the quota system. I'm not an expert here, but it strikes me that the quota system is more of a problem for you. If we got rid of Bill C-282, you would still have a difficult situation before you. Is that right?

[Joe Dal Ferro]

We find that Bill C-282 will limit the availability of cheeses from around the world for Canadian consumers. It will make it much more difficult to import cheeses from around the world.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Did you want to comment on Bill C-282 at all?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I want to follow up with the ICCC on some questions. We've heard from beef, especially about the U.K. ascending into the CPTPP. You mentioned a few of the existing trade barriers you're facing. I wonder if you could comment on how your companies are adapting to those. I wonder if you could comment on Bill C-282, which we recently had here in committee. If that passes, how would that work for your customers and the companies you represent?

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Shall the bill carry? We'll have a recorded vote, please.

(Bill C-282 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

Shall the chair report the bill to the House? We'll have a recorded vote again, please.

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Thank you all very much. That concludes the clause-by-clause on Bill C-282. I will report it to the House, as directed by the committee.

Just for the information of the committee, on Monday we will be returning to the IRA and the discussion about the Washington travel. On Thursday, we will start on the non-tariff barriers and the motion from Mr. Seeback. Is everybody good with that? Okay.

I move adjournment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arya.

I need to make a ruling on your proposed amendment.

Bill C-282 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to restrict the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding tariffs and the tariff rate quota for certain goods. The amendment seeks to remove these restrictions.

Again, as the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 770, states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

As such, there is no debate. LIB-1 is inadmissible.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, I move that Bill C-282, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:

give due consideration to the net benefit to Canada before making any commitment on behalf of the Government

As I said earlier, I'll make it very brief.

This bill is a big problem, and not only during the negotiations of any future trade agreements. In my view, it will start affecting Canada negatively even before certain agreements come for negotiation.

Currently, if I'm not wrong, there are free trade agreements negotiated with India, Indonesia and several other countries. The negotiators of the countries who are negotiating with Canada may use this bill as a tool to demand concessions or to prevent themselves from offering any concessions that Canada desires.

As I mentioned earlier, it is our responsibility as elected members of Parliament to look at what is in the best interests of Canada, not our partisan political interests. Supply management is well entrenched, and its supporters are quite vocal and very organized. We can't support a bill that goes against the interests of most of the farmers in the country just to respond to pressure from this small group of farmers, and not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right, thank you very much. Our translation issue is all right.

I need to now make a ruling on CPC-2. Thank you for moving it.

Bill C-282 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to restrict the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding tariffs and the tariff rate quota for certain goods. The amendment seeks to institute a compensatory regime that would be applicable to anyone affected by international trade.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

It is my opinion, Mr. Seeback, that the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If CPC-1 is adopted—if Mr. Baldinelli's motion is adopted—CPC-2 and LIB-1 cannot be moved due to a conflict in the lines. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment, as a given line may be amended only once.

I'm going to ask for a recorded vote on CPC-1, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment does not carry.

On CPC-2, Bill C-282 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act....

I'm sorry. Do you want to move CPC-2, Mr. Seeback?

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

I see that we have no party lines today. That's great! It's a new thing.

So here's my opinion. This amendment proposes that we replace “the Minister must not make any commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, by international trade treaty or agreement” with “the Minister may consider not making any commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, by international trade treaty or agreement”.

This amendment simply removes all substance from Bill C‑282. It takes all of the teeth out of it. It takes away any opportunity to prevent one minister from legally forcing another minister to put supply management on the table. It opens the door again. We are back to what we already had, which was verbal commitments from all sides to supply management and, in the end, no binding legislation. It completely distorts the bill.

If that's what you want, instead of passing an amendment, vote against clause 1. It will amount to the same thing.

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

Well, it's great that the parliamentary secretary can tell all of his members how they're going to be voting on this in advance of their consideration of it, but I guess that's how things work in the Liberal Party.

I quite frankly find it exhausting to listen to a member from Toronto tell members of this committee that they don't care about supply management. I spent the last two-week break visiting dairy farms and other farms in my riding—of which I have hundreds—and explaining to them the concerns that we have with this bill. Everyone there was understanding, including the dairy farmers I spoke to, so I'll take no lessons from Mr. Virani, from a downtown Toronto riding, telling me about whether or not I support supply management. I support it by the fact that I visit the farms in my riding often to discuss what the issues are.

With respect to this amendment, it actually enshrines what our long-standing policy in this country has been, a policy that the Liberal Party actually used when it negotiated the CPTPP and granted access to the supply-managed sector. They're the ones who did it, Madam Chair, and they did it because they had to. If there were no access to supply management, there would be no deal on the CPTPP. What the Liberals are now saying is that somehow by passing this they'll still be able to sign trade agreements.

Well, Madam Chair, the only way they're going to do that is if no other country in the world that we enter into a trade agreement with has any interest in any of our supply-managed sectors. I'm not an expert on the economies of every country in the world, but I suspect that's not the case. What Mr. Virani is effectively saying is that we will then not have those kinds of trade agreements, or they'll be less ambitious, or perhaps, Madam Chair, when they bring forward enabling legislation, they will just repeal Bill C-282 so they can give away access in supply-managed sectors. I find all of his comments ironic.

This is a well-thought-out amendment by Mr. Baldinelli. I'll be voting in favour of it. My Conservative colleagues, because we live in a democracy, will have the choice on how they're going to vote.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

As everyone knows, we've been looking at this legislation over the past couple of weeks with regard to supply management, and I believe that we can all say that we support supply management and its existence in Canada to protect our domestic sectors. In fact, as I mentioned last time, I dare say I am probably the only member of this committee who has actually worked for one of the supply-managed sectors. I was a lobbyist during my time at Hill+Knowlton, and we had as our client the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. They were a client of mine, and I worked with them closely over a five-year period. I support supply management and what it means to our sector.

During the hearings, listening to the testimony of the various stakeholder groups that came out, there was a theme that we continued to hear, and it was always one of predictability and stability. Those who came from the supply-managed sectors would talk about wanting this piece of legislation because of the predictability and stability that it would provide. However, those in non-supply-managed sectors would also talk about that predictability and stability being put at risk because of what this legislation could potentially mean if it was adopted by this government, so I have great concerns.

As I mentioned last time during my comments, as legislators we're here to try to make the best bill possible. I'm trying to see if there is a better way to do it, to take a flawed bill and make it a bit better. As we heard during the testimony, even the honourable member who sponsored the bill hadn't reached out to trade experts to seek their opinion on whether this bill would bring about some challenges and difficulties for Canada. He said that it's essentially like Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament, and those comments were on the record—in the blues, as he said—and we could simply take those comments and go with them. Well, I found some concerns.

When I did that, I had the opportunity to read those blues. In June of 2021 some of the witnesses with us today spoke out against that piece of legislation and raised some concerns about it setting a dangerous precedent. When we're here now examining this bill, those concerns are not as strong, so I just have those questions. That's why I believe it would have benefited us to actually have the opportunity to bring in some trade experts and to hear their views.

I'm not going to read into testimony the comments about the previous bill and the comments of our witnesses here today who made comments on Bill C-216. I don't want to get into that. I just want to reiterate some of the concerns.

One of the gentlemen who live in my riding is retired now. He was a government employee. He worked with the Competition Bureau. He was here when supply-management systems were established. He came to me and raised his concerns about Bill C-282. I believe everyone has received a copy of the letter he submitted today. He talked about the bill not being needed.

He said this:

The bill is not needed to show support for supply management. As some have already suggested to the Committee, Bill C-282 does not address supply management itself but rather attempts to dictate Canada's approach to future trade negotiations.

As a trading nation, Canada's success internationally has been the ability to be flexible in trade negotiations and adjust as needed to achieve an agreement good enough for all Canadians, including the supply management sector. It is undeniable that over the years and the multitude of [successful] trade agreements negotiated around the world, Canada has earned a reputation as being a fair, knowledgeable, and respected negotiator. However, Bill C-282 sends a concerning signal that Canada's trade negotiators no longer have the necessary discretion to discuss the supply management sector during future trade negotiations.

In my view, this signal is not needed, and it will likely be perceived as a negative by the international trade community. If [this] bill becomes law, most trading partners will be looking for compensation in some form in return for honouring Canada's request to keep supply management off the table.

Those are just some of the concerns. I think that adequately expresses some concerns I have too with regard to this bill.

Again, my hope here, in sitting on this international trade committee, was to listen to the feedback and try to make this bill a bit better for everyone so that it could address the concerns of all agricultural sectors.

It's almost an analogy of parents in a family. You don't love one child more than you do another. I felt that was what was happening here. We had one sector asking for special consideration, essentially, over the views of others. That is why I propose this amendment, to provide a little more flexibility to the government as it moves forward.

I table this for my colleagues' consideration.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Chair, if I may, at this point I would like to propose an amendment to clause 1. Perhaps I could read that for the benefit of everyone here. It reads as follows: that Bill C-282, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 1 with the following:

and functions set out in subsection (2), the Minister may consider not making any commitment on behalf of the Government

That is the proposal that I would like to make, Madam Chair.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 58 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your patience.

Please also note that during the meeting, it is not permitted to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes in order to ensure that all members get to participate fully.

Today we are meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

I will now welcome the officials who are with us today to answer questions we may have during the clause-by-clause consideration.

From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Tom Rosser, assistant deputy minister, market and industry services branch.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Aaron Fowler, associate assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; Stacy-Paul Healy, deputy director, tariffs and market access law division; and Doug Forsyth, director general, market access.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

We will start our consideration of Bill C-282. I need to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑282.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause will be subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it and speak to it. The amendment will then be open for further debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that any new amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow all members to fully follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We will now move into the clause-by-clause consideration.

(On clause 1)

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?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Chair, all these comments are about why I find it troubling that we're putting a finite time limit on ending debate on this piece of legislation. Our job as legislators is to take a piece of legislation and make it the best piece of legislation we can put before the House of Commons. That's my job. That's my pledge to the people I'm here to represent. This is a flawed piece of legislation and we can make it better.

Again, we all gave support at second reading. We also support supply management. To go back, I worked for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario during the 1990s and early 2000s, and I deeply support supply management. However, this bill is flawed. This is about taking a piece of legislation and making it better. Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion prevents me from taking the necessary time to make this a better bill.

It's my right as a parliamentarian to use the information that I'm prepared to share, which is explaining to you why government officials in 2021 were adamantly opposed to legislation similar to this bill. However, today they are not. I think we need more examination. That's why we're calling for further studies. That should be looked at.

I'm just sharing with you my thoughts on this, Madam Chair. I'm going to continue doing that.

During the committee's hearing on this legislation on June 11, 2021, trade officials were able to attend and speak to this bill and present their feelings on the proposed actions to formalize excluding supply management from future trade agreements that Canada undertakes. I think it's important to present this information.

Doug Forsyth, director general of market access at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, stated in his opening remarks on June 11, 2021, “The intent of the bill is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system.” We're all here and we can all share those views.

He then goes on to indicate some concerns when he mentions the following:

...amendment of the departmental act in the way in which Bill C-216 proposes carries risks. By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada. This narrows possible outcomes, precludes certain compromises and makes it harder to reach an agreement.

Addressing the interest of any specific sector in the act would set a precedent that could lead to demands for additional amendments to reflect other foreign and trade policy objectives, including sectoral interests, further constraining the government's ability to negotiate and sign international trade agreements and, more generally, to manage Canada's international relations.

Further on in his opening remarks, he mentions this:

The government has made public commitments not to make further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In fact, Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars: production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

Most recently, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors and provides no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product. Where new market access has been provided, specifically and exclusively in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, the access was deemed necessary to include an agreement that was in Canada's interest.

While new access was provided in those agreements, the supply management system and its three pillars were maintained. These outcomes were part of the overall balance of concessions through which Canada maintained preferential market access to the United States and secured new access to the European Union, Japan, Vietnam and other key markets.

In conclusion, while the spirit of Bill C-216 is consistent with the government's policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system, amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act as proposed by the bill would change its nature and create risks.

During that hearing, my colleague Mr. Aboultaif from Edmonton Manning asked Mr. Forsyth the following question:

With different markets and different conditions when you negotiate trade deals, you have to have flexibility and you have to have options in order to be able to achieve agreements. I know that Bill C-216 is aiming to somehow further protect supply management or preserve it, as Mr. Forsyth just said, but in the meantime, it carries risk, which Mr. Forsyth also stated in his opening remarks.

What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?

Mr. Forsyth's remarks were revealing in the sense that they told us what would happen if proposed legislation such as Bill C-282 were to be implemented. Speaking to Bill C-216 Mr. Forsyth states:

I would just note off the top that our supply management system, as you've indicated, has not stopped us or hampered us from concluding any trade agreements, but I think what is certainly possible is that the wording proposed for this bill will give trade negotiating partners pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada. From a trade negotiator's perspective, when we start a negotiation, we like to start with the full possibility of access in the back of our minds, whether or not that's where we end up. It's rarely the case that you would see 100% access in any free trade agreement, but you like to at least start with that notion in mind.

As you go through a negotiation with your various partners, you find that interests are enunciated, elaborated and narrowed down. You understand what's in the art of the possible, but you like to start as wide as possible when you do launch those negotiations. When you start—

I think this is key.

—from a very narrow band of possibilities and then that gets narrowed, the scope of the negotiations and the scope of the agreement is very much smaller than you would have seen otherwise.

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada right out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.

I think that's huge.

Then Mr. Aaron Fowler, who was chief agriculture negotiator and director general of trade agreement and negotiations at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food at the time, provided some comments on this by indicating, “I would certainly agree with everything Doug has said so far and associate myself with his response.”

Further on in questioning, presented this time by Ms. Bendayan from Outremont, Mr. Forsyth was asked, “Mr. Forsyth, could you explain to us whether, in your view, the adoption of this bill is necessary for the government to continue to defend Canada's supply management system?” Mr. Forsyth responded with this:

As I mentioned in my opening statement, since supply management was introduced, which was well over 50 years ago, various governments of various stripes have been very clear about defending the supply management system and ensuring that everyone understands how well it works for producers and farmers all across Canada.

I think the government has done a very good job of promoting and ensuring that all of our trading partners understand what supply management is. It's certainly part and parcel of all trade negotiators' mandates that we understand it well, that our trading partners understand it well, and that throughout the world, whether bilaterally or multilaterally—for example, at the World Trade Organization—it is well known what Canada's policy is.

To answer your question as to whether it would have any effect, I think that, as I said, the policy is well known and well understood, so I am not sure that there would be any.

Imagine my surprise, then, when after reviewing just some of the testimony from 2021, some differing views began being postulated by government trade officials when they came before us to examine Bill C-282.

I want to again bring into the record some of the comments of Mr. Fowler, who is now the associate assistant deputy minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. He provided opening comments during his visit to our first session. In his comments, Mr. Fowler stated:

The intent of [Bill C-282] is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system. In practice, this policy has allowed Canada to successfully conclude 15 ambitious free trade agreements covering 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars of production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

These comments are almost verbatim to those provided in 2021; however, Mr. Fowler then goes on to indicate:

...Bill C-282 proposes to make the government's commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system by enshrining it into law.

These comments seem to contradict the viewpoints and position of government officials, primarily those of Mr. Forsyth, who on Friday, June 11, when speaking to Bill C-216 from the 43rd session of Parliament, stated:

By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest.... This narrows possible outcomes, precludes certain compromises and makes it harder to reach an agreement.

Madam Chair, I think I'll wrap up my comments there and leave it to my colleague Mr. Seeback.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I apologize to this committee, Madam Chair, for that slight. It was an oversight.

I'll go back. Again, I'm speaking to Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion, why we need further examination and why I deem his motion unacceptable. I'm going back to some of the comments I made and some of the experts we've heard from.

I'll finish up the quote from our initial meetings. Again, this is with Mr. Arya from Nepean, our colleague, when he was talking to Mr. Thériault during the initial conversations. I'm going to go back and start over. He said this to Mr. Thériault:

International trade is very important to Canada. Almost two-thirds of our GDP comes from international trade. Our prosperity and the standard of living that we enjoy today are basically due to international trade.

What your bill proposes will almost kill the ability of Canada to further our international trade, not only in terms of the new trade agreements we need to negotiate but even for the existing ones. There will always be issues there that need to be looked into.

Even with our small number of Canadian farmers, we are ranked fifth largest worldwide in terms of exports. There is a tiny number of Canadian farmers.

He went on to say:

Have you consulted with Pulse Canada, the Canola Council, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, Cereals Canada or the Canadian Cattle Association? These are the sectors that work hard and that are the first to leverage every new international trade agreement Canada signs so we can increase exports from Canada. Have you consulted with any of them?

Unfortunately, this committee did not receive a detailed response to that specific question. It was not for lack of trying by Mr. Arya, however, who again asked:

I would like to ask the witness again: 90% of the farms and agri-food businesses that are represented by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance say they strongly oppose Bill C-282. When I was listening to the witness's comment, Madam Chair, I heard the fluctuations and how, when it fluctuates downwards, small producers will get decimated.

The same thing applies to every single industrial and business sector, so every single sector can demand a clause like this, barring the government from negotiating anything to do with their sector when it goes in for new free trade agreement negotiations. It means that Canadian international trade has to collapse. Is that not the case?

These are very valid comments raised by my honourable colleague, which is more troubling, I would suggest, when you consider they are the same views held by many government officials who came before this committee in 2021 to study a bill very similar to Bill C-282. Bill C-216, from the 43rd Parliament, was tabled before, and it was an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management.

If I could—I apologize—I just need a little water.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague Mr. Savard-Tremblay, which was submitted to committee members by way of notice of motion on Thursday, April 13, 2023.

As written, the motion reads:

That the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282—An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) on Thursday, April 20, 2023; that the Committee allocate a maximum of four consecutive hours, divided into no more than two meetings, to complete the said study; and that, if at the end of the four hours provided for, the Committee has not completed its deliberations, Bill C-282 be deemed to have been adopted, and that it be thereby referred back to the House.

At this point, let me first say that I find this motion entirely disappointing simply in that this committee has yet to conclude discussions in consideration of motions that have already been tabled at this committee. In fact, these motions were submitted by my colleague Mr. Seeback. One notice of motion was submitted on Tuesday, March 28, 2023, and stated:

That the committee extend, by at least 2 meetings, the study on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), to ensure trade experts are able to provide testimony and for departmental officials to return before clause-by-clause to speak to questions raised about their initial testimony.

Another notice of motion was submitted by Mr. Seeback on Tuesday, March 28, 2023, which stated:

That the committee hold one additional meeting to invite back departmental officials prior to clause-by-clause, to testify on Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), regarding urgent concerns raised about the legislation during witness testimony; and that the committee hold no less than three additional meetings to ensure all witnesses can testify in person.

Second, in terms of the motion put forward by Mr. Savard-Tremblay, I find it an insult to my parliamentary privilege that somehow, if discussion and debate on this legislation are not completed in a time period designated by my colleague only, this committee will then deem the legislation to have been passed. I deem that to be an affront to my privileges and to those of the citizens who sent me here.

If you know anything about my fine riding of Niagara Falls, it's that it is home to, I would suggest—and this is not to be taken as a slight to my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay—the best wine region in Canada. We continue to pay the price of this government's regressive escalator clause on alcohol, which was passed by this Liberal government in 2017 despite Conservative objections. What is the result? Every year without parliamentary approval, our sector suffers a continued death by a thousand cuts in having to pay more taxes when the margins within the sector are already thin.

If I may, I will remind the members of this trade committee that it was the actions of the minister in not negotiating a resolution to the creation of this new escalator clause that resulted in Canada's losing a World Trade Organization challenge to our previous excise exemption for 100% Canadian-made wines. As you will remember, when this exemption was put in place by a previous Conservative government in 2006, the industry grew from some 300 to 400 wineries to over 700 wineries employing over 9,000 workers.

Why do I raise this? It's because government actions or lack thereof matter. Every member of this committee has signalled their support for our supply-management system. I dare say I may be the only one who worked directly for one of those sectors when I worked as a consultant for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. However, that work has not clouded my judgment or my desire to study, examine and perhaps make recommendations, which can take what I believe is a flawed piece of legislation and make it one that everyone can support and subsequently vote on, rather than what my colleague's motion proposes to do, which is to simply deem this legislation adopted.

As the member from Dufferin—Caledon has indicated, many questions remain, not only based on the testimony provided by our government officials but by several others who have yet to have an opportunity to appear. Would this international trade committee not benefit in any way from hearing from international trade experts? Why is there hesitancy in that? Surely, if Canada's chief NAFTA negotiator, Steve Verheul, could be invited to attend the recent state dinner held in honour of the President of the United States' visit to Canada, he could be invited to appear before this committee so we can ask him his opinion on this legislation.

In terms of the concerns I would like to raise, they simply come from the interactions of the bill's sponsor, the honourable member for Montcalm, Mr. Thériault, when he presented the legislation to this committee on Thursday, February 16, 2023. During the initial questions, my colleague Mr. Seeback asked Mr. Thériault, “Did you consult any other agricultural groups with respect to their views on this piece of legislation, and if you did not, why not?” In response, Mr. Thériault stated, “If memory serves, the other groups stated their positions during the study of Bill C-216. One only has to look at the blues to see what their views are.”

Mr. Seeback then followed up by asking Mr. Thériault, “Outside of agricultural groups, did you consult any other industries—for example, aluminum or steel—on whether they thought that taking supply management out of the minister's ability to negotiate an international trade agreement would affect their opportunities within a trade agreement?” Mr. Thériault's response was, “No, absolutely not.”

I'm not sure if others are concerned by this; however, I am. When a piece of legislation that has the potential to fundamentally change how our government and trade officials undertake negotiations in the best interests of all Canadians is fundamentally changed, one would think the input of trade experts in other agricultural sectors would be taken into account.

I think this point was made quite strongly by our colleague Mr. Arya from Nepean when he stated at the meeting, “International trade is very important to Canada. Almost two-thirds of our GDP comes from international trade. Our prosperity and the standard of living that we enjoy today are basically due to international trade.” He then posits his views:

What your bill proposes will almost kill the ability of Canada to further our international trade, not only in terms of the new trade agreements we need to negotiate but even for the existing ones. There will always be issues there that need to be looked into.

Even with our small number of Canadian farmers, we are ranked fifth largest worldwide in terms of exports. There is a tiny number of Canadian farmers.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll confess to having some of the same surprise Mr. Savard-Tremblay mentioned regarding how the study of Bill C-282 has unfolded. Given specifically the fact that all officially recognized parties in the chamber voted in favour of this bill at second reading, I've been a bit surprised at some of the obstruction and delay tactics that His Majesty's official opposition has used, including filibustering this bill at our very committee.

I think the motion itself is well received by all parties. It should be well received by all parties that actually want to conclude this study and ensure the bill gets returned to the House of Commons so that it can in fact be passed in the chamber. I think the appropriate compromise that Mr. Savard-Tremblay has struck here is articulated in the text of the motion.

To make it extremely clear, what I would suggest is that where the motion reads, “that the Committee allocate a maximum of four consecutive hours, divided into no more than two meetings”, I would insert a phrase, right after the comma, so it would say, “divided into no more than two meetings, one of which will include hearing from witnesses, to complete the said study”. Then it would just continue. This makes it abundantly clear to my Conservative colleagues that we are in agreement with them that additional witness evidence should be heard. A determination can be made as to what kind of witnesses those should be, apropos of what Mr. Savard-Tremblay has just mentioned.

In the spirit of compromise, we can hopefully work together as a committee, ideally unanimously, to complete the study with these two meetings, one of which would be with witnesses and the second of which would be for clause-by-clause. Then we would report the bill back to the House. I think that's what any defender of supply management, including His Majesty's official opposition, ought to do in this case.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Okay. I will continue.

The motion speaks for itself. Its purpose is to avoid any filibustering on Bill C‑282; there's been enough of that. We were able to devote the required number of meetings to this issue.

I would never let myself be compromised, but I do believe in compromise. I agree wholeheartedly. Our friends the Conservatives wanted to be able to interview trade law experts and former negotiators. My motion will allow them to be called. We will also be able to call senior officials again.

I feel my motion will really work for everyone.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I always find it very interesting and curious when members from the Liberal Party say, when we're trying to do due diligence, debate or look into issues, that it's obstruction and that we're against things.

Nothing can be further from the truth. I will be visiting farms in my riding over the break, in particular dairy farmers, who I know work so hard. I doubt that the parliamentary secretary will be visiting dairy farmers in his riding over the break.

To go back to where I was, this was Mr. Dhaliwal's question. He said:

My question is for Mr. Forsyth. He mentioned numerous times that there are some risks involved. One of them, he mentioned, is a narrow outcome. I would like to ask him to explain or elaborate on those risks and the potential impacts.

Mr. Forsyth replied:

I'd be happy to elaborate on some of those risks and what would happen in a trade negotiation if one were to be negotiating with not the full basket of items on the table. I highlighted it in one of my earlier answers, but I'm happy to flag it again.

I think that as a trade negotiator you like to start the negotiation with as many items on the table as possible. It does potentially allow for trade-offs and allows for a broad discussion with your trading partner in order to understand what is within the art of the possible.

It is incumbent on us as trade negotiators to make sure that our trading partners understand our key defensive interests and what our red lines are and what things we cannot do. As I've said, throughout my negotiating career, it's been clear that concessions made in the supply management sector are red lines. That is what was in my mandate for the Canada-UK TCA and that was what was respected.

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

This is, to me, just an absolutely incredible paragraph. It sets out how deeply concerned Mr. Forsyth was with respect to Bill C-216, which is now effectively the exact same as Bill C-282, yet we did not get 10% of that concern when we were hearing from government officials when we were talking about Bill C-282.

The answer continued:

We have not faced that yet to date, but it is possible that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, that is in fact what we would do. It would be quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canadian exporters and producers, and then we would be faced with the situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be.

Here we are today, talking about what's been studied with respect to Bill C-282. What we've talked about is that we need additional meetings. Why do we need additional meetings? Well, for one thing, we did not get evidence like this during the study of Bill C-282. We got nothing like this from government officials.

What is something that we proposed? We proposed that we should have some trade experts come to the committee to talk about this. That's what we're asking for. We've been asking for this for quite some time.

Madam Chair, if you recall, I had a similar motion with respect to this. The committee meeting was adjourned, and the committee did not recognize the need to have additional meetings as a result of that adjournment.

Nothing, quite frankly, could be further from the truth, because—and this is the really critical part of that statement—we would be faced with the situation of “negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be”.

That's the effect, from our government officials with regard to Bill C-216, which is identical to Bill C-282, yet we're moving through here on Bill C-282 without seemingly any consideration for this or any desire to have a more in-depth conversation with, perhaps, trade experts.

We certainly have Mr. Verheul on our list of witnesses. He would be an expert and someone who could give us very clear guidance on how serious an impact this would have on our negotiating positions.

He went on to say, “Maybe I'll turn to my colleague from Agriculture Canada to see if he'd like to add anything.” Mr. Fowler then went on to say, “Thank you very much. No, I fully agree....” He fully agrees.

We can ask what he fully agrees with. Well, I would say that he fully agrees that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, if that is in fact what we would do, it is quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canada, and we would be faced with a situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be. Under Bill C-216, we have very clear agreement from government officials about the significant consequences that this bill could have. Well, actually, I think it's what they think the consequences of the bill would be if it were passed, and we got just a modicum of that concern when they came back to talk about Bill C-282. Again, this gives me grave concerns, grave concerns about what we should actually believe.

Quite frankly, the only way to get an answer to that is if we have these gentlemen come back to committee and give them pointed questions with respect to the evidence they gave under Bill C-216 and the evidence they gave under Bill C-282 and have them answer those questions. That's the only way we will get to the bottom of this inconsistency.

The rest of Mr. Fowler's answer is as follows:

No, I fully agree...trade negotiation has reached what we call a balance of commitments or a balance of concessions or a commensurate level of ambition with your trading partner.

That's an important phrase: “level of ambition with your trading partner.”

He continued:

To the extent there are issues that are of interest...that we're not in a position to discuss, the reasonable conclusion would be that the overall level of ambition of the agreement would necessarily be diminished as a result of that position.

They are very clearly stating that not only is it going to be challenging from a negotiating perspective, but the level of ambition of the agreement would be diminished, which I think is interesting, because when we had Mr. Troy Sherman come to talk about this at our committee—Mr. Sherman is from the Canola Council of Canada—this is what he had to say:

My name is Troy Sherman, and I am the director of government relations for the Canola Council of Canada. The council encompasses all links in the canola value chain. Our members include canola growers, life science companies, grain handlers, exporters, processors and others. Our shared goal is [to ensure] the industry's continued growth and success, and [to do this] by meeting global demand for canola and canola-based products, which include food, feed and fuel.

Canola's success is Canada's success. Our industry represents almost $30 billion in economic activity annually, 207,000 jobs across the country, $12 billion in wages and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. With over 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious and fair science- and rules-based trade.

For many years, we have worked with Canada's trade negotiators to make sure that Canada and Canadian canola are well positioned to help feed the world. Central to these trade negotiations is the foundational principle that negotiators should be empowered to reach the best agreements for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Negotiators have been able to achieve this by availing themselves of all the tools in our trade-negotiating tool box, working closely with industry, academics and civil society to ensure [that] Canada's trade agreements achieve what is in our national interest.

This is what is being said to achieve the national interests, and we go back to what Mr. Forsyth said, which was that “it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.”

Mr. Sherman went on to say this:

Bill C-282 risks undermining Canada's reputation as a trading nation and, consequently, [undermining] our national interest [in] trade negotiations. [Bill C-282] does this in a number of ways, including putting in place legislative prohibitions on what our negotiators [are able to] discuss at the negotiation table and diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.

When you talk about the level of ambition, Mr. Sherman was saying exactly the same thing: “diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.”

He went on:

On the first point, Bill C-282 [is proposing to prohibit] what Canada's trade negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table. To the best of our knowledge, and as noted by officials at Global Affairs Canada, no other country legislatively prohibits negotiators from discussing certain topics during trade negotiations. Canada would be an outlier, and needlessly so.

In [March] 2021, an official from Global Affairs appeared before this very committee on Bill C-216 [a] predecessor [to Bill C-282]. At the time, they stated the following, “Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system”.

So Mr. Sherman was also aware of the evidence that Government of Canada officials had given under Bill C-216. He went on:

The official went on to say:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

He said:

What was true when [that] was said two years ago remains true today. Bill C-282 is a solution in search of a problem and...risks undermining other industries and sectors of the economy, including Canadian canola. Passing Bill C-282 will set a dangerous precedent for additional amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, [in order] to either protect certain industries or mandate restrictive language in trade agreements in specific areas of interest.

Regarding the second challenge mentioned, Bill C-282 will significantly diminish Canada's desirability as a country with which to pursue trade negotiations.

Let's go back. Canola represents $30 billion in economic activity for this country annually, 207,000 jobs across the country. Think about that for a second: 207,000 jobs and $12 billion in wages. They are very deeply concerned with this bill.

I've lost my spot here. Mr. Sherman continued:

By legislating that our negotiators are not able to include supply management as part of the negotiations, Canada is significantly shrinking the trade prospect pie and potentially forcing Canadian concessions in other areas of interest. If Canada is viewed as an obstacle for new entrants to plurilateral agreements, or less attractive to engage with—given our legislated red line on supply management—our trading partners may question the value of having Canada at the negotiation table.

To conclude, Bill C-282 represents a significant departure from Canada's principled, fair and rules-based...trade posture. No industry, sector or issue should be off the table during trade negotiations. Our trade negotiators have delivered tangible results and benefits for the Canadian economy and industries, including canola.

Mr. Sherman is right on point with what Mr. Fowler said with respect to Bill C-216, that the reasonable conclusion would be that the overall level of ambition of the agreement would be diminished as a result of that position, that position being that we take a certain sector of the Canadian economy off the trade agenda.

Mr. Dhaliwal then asked—and this I think is quite interesting, because this also never came out in the discussion with government officials with respect to Bill C-282. He said:

Madam Chair, it's also mentioned that in introducing specific policy objectives, the proposed amendments wouldn't fundamentally change the nature of the departmental act. I would like to hear an elaboration on that particular issue as well, please.

Mr. Forsyth then said this:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If you look at the act itself, it...is an organizational statute that sets out in general terms what the powers and duties and functions are for...ministers. It does not have any specific policies related to what the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of International Development or the Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to be doing. It doesn't elaborate on any government policies of the day. It's a general act that sets out the terms and conditions, if you will, for the department and for the ministers and the deputy ministers. It's not policy—

This is the danger with putting something like this within that act. You are actually putting policy into the act. What happens if others decide that we should be putting policy, not just trade, into the act, or perhaps putting foreign policy into the act or international development policy into the act? It sets a terrible, terrible precedent, something that we should absolutely have departmental officials back to talk about, especially considering the fact that their testimony seems so starkly different from one committee appearance to the other.

Mr. Lobb then had this question:

The first question I have is for Mr. Forsyth.

Again, thank you for appearing before our committee. I think you've been in the lead for most appearances since I've been on the committee—maybe you and the minister—so congratulations on being available.

When we say that we can't ever say we're not going to put certain items forward at the beginning of the trade negotiation, I understand the sentiment, but I'm curious that when we were doing the USMCA deal, softwood lumber never made its way on there and buy America really never got resolved either.

How does that happen?

Mr. Forsyth said:

I wasn't directly involved with the broader Canada-U.S.-Mexico negotiation at the time, but my understanding is that we certainly did start with the broadest possible negotiating objectives, including trying to deal with softwood lumber in some way, shape or form, as well as trying to deal with trying to negotiate a government procurement chapter in relation to the buy America provisions. It was clear, as we started to narrow down the issues, that the United States would not engage on either of those issues, so they were put aside...

Imagine if, in six years, as we heard from the committee, we looked at the CUSMA agreement and this piece of legislation was in place. What would the effect of that be with respect to that renegotiation? I think that's something that we have to get some expert advice on.

The other issue is this. It's interesting that there was an attempt to discuss softwood lumber in the renegotiation of CUSMA. Right now, the Minister of International Trade is trying to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. It would be interesting to see what effect Bill C-282 would have on her ability to negotiate softwood lumber. We know that the United States has complaints right now with respect to how the TRQs are allocated within CUSMA for dairy. Would this bill be an aggravating circumstance in trying to negotiate the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute, a dispute that now has collected over $8 billion in duties?

Based on the last softwood lumber settlement, Canada would be entitled to $6 billion of those duties being returned. I can only imagine what the Canadian softwood lumber industry could do with $6 billion in improvements, in machinery and equipment and perhaps the ability to export more to the United States.

Again, these are very serious questions with respect to the implications of this bill. Therefore, this is something that we absolutely need to have more meetings to discuss, because we quite frankly do not have the answers to any of that. We can go back to what we heard from department officials and what Mr. Arya asked Mr. Fowler:

Mr. Fowler, you indicated rightly that without this bill, Canada has been able to limit access and protect the supply management that we have today.

Why do we need this bill at all?

He said:

I am quite certain I am not the person to ask that question of, Madam Chair.

This is interesting, because under Bill C-216 they seemed to suggest that Bill C‑216 is not necessary at all, and Bill C‑216 is the exact same bill as Bill C-282.

We have to ask ourselves why, when they came to committee the first time, they suggested that the bill was not really necessary, but this time when they come back and they were asked a direct question—do you think the bill is necessary?—they decided not to answer. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it? The first time: We don't think this bill is necessary. This time: I don't think I'm the right person to answer this question.

That really gives me pause. That says to me that something has happened, and a witness who answered a question one time now won't answer a question another time. This is a very head-scratching situation.

Mr. Arya tried again:

Okay, I'll ask this one.

If this bill is passed...you are going to say that it will not affect you in any way. Is there no constraint on you at all in negotiating any new agreement?

He got this response:

I think it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that a piece of legislation that's before the Canadian Parliament would have no impact. I believe the intent of the bill is to have an impact. My conclusion is that it will have an impact.

I can't speculate on precisely what that impact will be, because I don't know who [we'll] be negotiating with in the future or what their interests would be in the context of those negotiations.

Now, that is a very interesting way to say, “I can't speculate on what the impact would be.” It's interesting, because at the last committee hearing, Mr. Forsyth said this:

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say, “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada...out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.

Here, on Bill C-282, it's “I can't speculate on...what [the] impact would be.” It would seem to me that when Bill C-216 was being studied at committee, our department officials had a very good idea of what the impact would be, but somehow, in some strange way, they suddenly didn't think they could anticipate what the impact would be.

This is another example of why we need additional meetings. This is another example of why department and government officials need to come back to this committee and explain exactly what has changed. Why have their views changed? Why are they saying different things?

I'm going to go on with this a little more, because Mr. Arya was quite persistent in his questions. I suspect he perhaps saw some of the previous evidence that was given by department officials and was trying to get some answers. Mr. Arya said:

You are stating that your hands would have been tied, sort of, if this bill had been there.

Coming back to the CUSMA, the next president of the United States might tank this again and seek to renegotiate.

If this bill passes, what will Canada's position be in those negotiations?

I would think Mr. Fowler would have said, based on what was said by the Government of Canada under Bill C-216, that this would be difficult; this would tie our hands; this would narrow the scope of our ability to negotiate. Unfortunately, that's not what he said.

He said:

I believe, Madam Chair, that the position would, by necessity, be consistent with what is set out in the piece of legislation that is before the committee. That is to say that Canadian negotiators could advance no additional market access in these sectors, nor could the government of the day accept to make such concessions.

This is much less forthcoming an answer to a question than what we saw when Bill C-216 was here at this committee, and again, it is an identical bill.

Mr. Arya is a determined man. He wasn't prepared to let that go, so he asked another question:

My concern is that it will affect negotiating an overall trade agreement with the United States and Mexico with terms like the current one, which are favourable to Canada.

Finally Mr. Fowler admitted, “It would have an impact on these negotiations. I think it—”

Mr. Arya said, “Would it be a negative impact?”

Mr. Fowler said:

Given the United States' interest in the dairy sector in particular in Canada, I think an inability to discuss those issues would make it more difficult to reach a conclusion.

Again, this answer is very hedgy, very hedgy, not the very clear declarations that Mr. Fowler was giving in the previous study of this bill. I find it, again, enormously challenging for us, as parliamentarians, to be at this committee and to say, let's rush to clause-by-clause; let's just get it done. We have completely inconsistent statements from our government officials as to what the effect would be.

We know, for example, that just for the canola sector, Mr. Sherman talked about $30 billion in economic activity, $12 billion in wages, and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. They are extraordinarily concerned about this bill. They believe it is going to have an extremely detrimental impact on future trade negotiations and a detrimental impact on their ability to export products. They are a major exporter, and they provide $12 billion in wages to Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.

We know how difficult it is to make ends meet right now. I suspect that if you don't have a job, it's going to be much, much more difficult than that.

Mr. Arya then said:

There will be a negative impact.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade, says it strongly oppose[s] Bill C-282. It stated, “This legislation creates a dangerous precedent and diminishes Canada as a free trade partner.”

Do you agree with this statement?

Again, this is where it gets interesting, because the answer we get here is very different from the answer we got before. I'll start with the answer to Mr. Arya's question:

I am familiar with this statement, the views of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance and its concerns. I have discussed these issues with the [trade] alliance in the past.

I think it is the job of Canadian negotiators to ensure that we operate to the maximum advantage of Canadian industry stakeholders, irrespective of the mandate and operating environment in which we...work. We will continue to do that.

The statement is talking about how it's a dangerous precedent. Mr. Arya is asking Mr. Fowler if he agrees with this, and Mr. Fowler is once again very, very careful with his answer. I mean, he's so careful that he almost doesn't say anything.

If we go back to Bill C-216, though, Mr. Forsyth was asked this question and gave this reply:

I'd be happy to elaborate on some of those risks and what would happen in a trade negotiation if one were to be negotiating with not the full basket of items on the table. I highlighted it in one of my earlier answers, but I'm happy to flag it again.

Mr. Forsyth was very clear and forthcoming under questioning as to the impact of Bill C-216—very clear. All the department officials who came were very clear on Bill C-216. Mr. Forsyth was very clear in the answers, and Mr. Fowler was also very clear in answers.

I'll go back to Mr. Forsyth:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

We have not faced that yet to date, but it is possible that if we were to go down the path provided in Bill C-216, that is in fact what we would do. It would be quite likely that our trading partners would take off the table something of interest to Canadian exporters and producers, and then we would be faced with the situation of negotiating an agreement that might not be as beneficial to Canada as it could be.

Then he turned it over to his colleague from Agriculture Canada, Mr. Fowler, who said this:

Thank you very much.

No, I fully agree....

Let's go back to Mr. Arya's question:

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade, says it strongly oppose[s] Bill C-282. It stated, “This legislation creates a dangerous precedent and diminishes Canada as a free trade partner.”

Do you agree with this statement?

A very similar question was asked under Bill C-216. I just gave you part of that answer, where Mr. Fowler was saying he agreed that this would have a serious...that it would diminish Canada as a free trade partner, but somehow, under Bill C-282, this is the answer we get:

I'm familiar with this statement.

Okay. That's great.

I have discussed these issues with the alliance....

I think it is the job of Canadian negotiators to ensure that we operate to the maximum advantage of...industry stakeholders, irrespective of the mandate and operating environment in which we...work. We will continue to do that.

It's a completely different answer. It's almost a complete evasion of the question, and we, as a committee, are just supposed to say, “Well, there's nothing to see here, because what they said under Bill C-282 is all that we should be concerned about.” They said something almost diametrically opposed last time. As parliamentarians, we should just move on. We're busy. Let's not have an extra meeting or two to try to get to the bottom of it. It's only $12 billion of salaries for Canadian workers that are at risk, so let's move on. There's nothing to see here.

To me, these are incredibly concerning issues. The government officials say that they understand the concerns, and, sort of, that's it, but they're not going to acknowledge them. That's where we are under Bill C-282. Under Bill C-216 is it very, very different, and I find that, Madam Chair, to be deeply and extraordinarily challenging, something that I am very unhappy with, and something, quite frankly, it really wouldn't be too hard for this committee to get to the bottom of. We need a few extra meetings.

My motion talks about one additional meeting to invite departmental officials back prior to clause-by-clause, not only because we heard such fearful testimony on other aspects of the Canadian economy but also, I think, because perhaps departmental officials would like to clear up how their statements seem to be wildly inconsistent. That's my perspective.

I was a litigation lawyer for over a decade. When you see statements that are wildly inconsistent, you think you have to get to the bottom of them. If you don't, you don't actually know where the truth lies.

I think that's reason number one that we should be looking at this. We need the department officials to come back. We need to ask them questions similar to the questions I've asked today. Everyone on this committee should want that and should want to demand the answers.

That's what I have to say with respect to that, but the other issue is this.

Madam Chair, you had a question on where I was.

That was the first point I wanted to make with respect to this motion. I have four points in total, and I'm going to move to my second point now, which is the fact that we need additional stakeholders to come to speak to this.

We have had so many people come to talk about this and raise concerns. One of the ones I thought were quite powerful and we really didn't get much information on, because of, again, the limited amount of time we had at committee to study this, was Mr. Joe Dal Ferro, the chair of the International Cheese Council of Canada.

He was talking about his association:

The ICCC was founded in 1976. We are an association of small and medium-sized cheese importers and their suppliers. Our members are Canadian-based importers of cheese. Our associate members include cheese producers and processors from various countries that have international trade agreements with Canada.

It was actually Mr. Cannings who had some very interesting questions for them to try to understand what they were talking about. It is a complex issue, and I don't think in a five-minute intervention we're able to get to the bottom of it.

He stated:

The ICCC has coexisted with Canada's supply-managed dairy sector for over four decades and accepts the rationale underlying Canada's supply management system.

They are also supporters of supply management. They are not advocating for its dismantling.

He continued:

Rather, we are continuing to work with the government to ensure that its TRQ allocation and administration system respects our trade commitments in the dairy sector. Moreover, many of our members, including my company, are proud to be distributors of domestic cheeses [all] across...Canada.

I am here today to offer the committee several compelling reasons why Bill C-282 should not be supported by parliamentarians.

First, parliamentarians must...consider the significant negative financial impacts...this bill will have on the many Canadian small to [mid]-sized businesses that import cheese. The future for Canadian importers of cheese is already uncertain. This bill is only adding to the unpredictability. The unknown outcome of Global Affairs' TRQ phase II review—which initially started in 2019—is creating ambiguity and inhibiting business planning. Moreover, it may require importers to significantly change their business methods and model if the new quota policy is unfavourable to our industry.

If Bill C-282 becomes law, it risks obstructing even the possibility of addressing the market access requested by the U.K. as part of the ongoing bilateral negotiations. If the U.K. is forced to settle for a portion of the WTO non-EU quota, Canadian importers will be limited to exclusively using this method...to import British cheeses.

Now, this is the important part. He went on to say, “This pool is already fully utilized....”

What is effectively being said by this gentleman is that if Bill C-282 becomes law.... The U.K. left its quota in the EU when Brexit happened. Its quota was left with the EU. It has some quota now through the transitional provisions as we're negotiating the FTA, but if Bill C-282 passes, then there can be no additional dairy access granted to the U.K.

This bill is happening right in the middle of trade negotiations. Our negotiators are there, trying to negotiate a deal, and hanging over their head is the fact that this bill could pass and completely upheave the negotiations, because maybe there's going to be some dairy access for the U.K. We know they want it, but if this bill passes, there's none.

Imagine you're the trade negotiator there, and you think you have a deal—you're very close. Boom, Bill C-282 comes in, and all of a sudden that part of the deal you've made is no longer valid, because you're in contravention of a piece of legislation. That is the risk of doing this.

I was a lawyer, but I am not an international trade lawyer. We do have someone or some people who could come to this committee and give us some guidance on this. Mr. Verheul would be fantastic for that. Mr. Verheul could be asked, “If you're in the middle of a negotiation and someone passes a piece of legislation that takes a segment of that negotiation off the table, how would that affect your negotiation or your ability to negotiate?”

As a lawyer, I know. I had to negotiate things all the time, and as part of the negotiating process, you're building good faith with your counterpart. You're building good faith and trust as you move forward in trying to negotiate something. If you have come to a decision whereby you're saying that maybe you're going to have to find a way to give the U.K. 0.05% or something like that—I'm just making up a number—and you know that then you're going to have agreement on all these other things, but a piece of legislation comes in and says, no, that's off the table, how are you going to continue to work forward in good faith? It's going to absolutely affect the good faith of the negotiation.

The other thing is this, Madam Chair: Is the threat of Bill C-282 hanging over our negotiators' heads right now as they try to negotiate the FTA with the U.K., because they feel they have to rush the FTA to get it done before this bill passes?

Let's think about the consequence of that. If you're rushing to conclude an FTA because of fear of this piece of legislation, you might actually give away more than you'd planned to because you had to get it done quickly, which is a really interesting thing as we're talking about Canada-U.K. and what's going on.

In a March 9 article in a U.K. newspaper, there was bragging: “I am hearing that the volumes on beef are low, and that in return they have also got some dairy access which makes it a more reciprocal and balanced agreement.” That is someone who is involved or who has knowledge of the Canada-U.K. FTA negotiation.

So there's a possibility that this bill in and of itself is causing our negotiators to rush to get a deal, and in so doing may in fact do more harm to the supply management sector in this country than would have happened, because our negotiators are under pressure to get this done before they can.

The international cheese association said:

This pool is already fully utilized with cheeses from the U.S.—

That's the WTO quota.

—New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway, among others. Otherwise, they will find themselves faced with three options, all of which will result in financial harm to Canadian businesses.

These are the three unappealing options. The first is ceasing to import U.K. cheese products altogether in Canada, meaning that many Canadians’ beloved British cheeses could be gone forever. The second is substituting some of their imports from other non-EU countries with imports from the U.K., ensuring a shortage of available cheeses.... Third...importing U.K. cheese with the prohibitive 245% tariff.

Imagine that—a 245% tariff. This is a government that talks about how it's there for small business. It talks about it all the time, about how important small business is. Here we have the International Cheese Council of Canada saying that this could have a devastating impact on small businesses because of their inability to import cheese. They came; they gave their evidence, and they gave their significant concerns.

Madam Chair, they were so concerned that they actually submitted a brief after they appeared. That is not always how it goes. They often submit briefs before they appear. They were so concerned that they decided to actually put a submission in. This is something, again, that I think we should be studying, and studying closely. It talks about this:

C-282: Potential Impacts on Canada-UK Trade

If C-282 passes, the many small to mid-sized businesses that import cheese from the UK will be at a distinct disadvantage.

As a result of Brexit, the UK has ceased to be entitled to the market access achieved by the European Union (EU) as part of CETA.

That's what I was saying. The U.K. left its market access in the EU through Brexit. It was an unintended consequence, I'm sure.

In December 2020, the UK and Canada agreed to a 3-year transition period during which the UK will continue to have access to the WTO cheese TRQ EU pool, despite the UK having become a non-EU country.

I think that's what they were trying to explain when Mr. Cannings was asking questions. The UK is getting some WTO access through the EU pool, but this is a transitional provision, and the ICCC goes on to say this:

Unfortunately, the post-2023 future for Canada's importers of UK cheese has never been more uncertain—and the prospect of Bill C-282 passing would make the resolution of this problem even more challenging.

The reason for this is that, at it stands, after 2023, UK cheese products will need to be brought into the Canadian market through the WTO TRQ non-EU pool—

The U.K. had some access under the WTO TRQ pool. Afterwards, they will not—after 2023—because the agreement extends only until 2023, so then they go to the WTO TRQ non-EU pool, and this is where the problem is. It's:

—a pool which already has a utilisation rate of above 97%.

That pool is full. British cheese will not really get into Canada unless it's under those scenarios that I was talking about, which would include a 245% tariff. That would drive that cheese out of the marketplace.

Moreover, if Bill C-282 becomes law, it will obstruct even the possibility of addressing the access requested by the UK. The UK would be forced to settle for a portion of the WTO TRQ non-EU pool...with no modification in overall quota amount despite the addition of the UK, a significant cheese-producing member. The result is that our Members—i.e., Canadian importers—will also be limited to exclusively using the WTO TRQ non-EU pool to import UK cheese products. Otherwise, they will find themselves faced with the following three unappealing options.

Those are the options they mentioned in their statement to this committee, all of which are very unappealing, and all of which, they say, will result in financial harm to Canadian businesses.

These are small businesses, Madam Chair. They are small businesses. They are, most often, mom-and-pop shops. They're the ones we should be trying to find a way to help, to protect. The government should be very concerned about this. The government should be listening to witnesses to hear what the impact of this is going to be.

Instead, this government, this committee, seems to want to just say, “We've heard enough. We don't care. We're sorry, you cheese importers, but we just don't care because we're passing this bill regardless of your concerns,” without actually even fleshing out their concerns, because when someone comes and gives a five-minute opening statement and gets one five-minute Q and A, it's incredibly difficult to actually explain the severity of the problem and how serious the problem is.

I've had a bit of time today to go into some of the problems, and I'm not even going into depth on many of these things. I'm just scratching the surface to try to raise these issues, to try to convince my colleagues that more meetings will help this committee make a good decision and help this committee find a way for this bill to be a winner for everyone. That's really what we want. All of us want that. Despite what the parliamentary secretary will say about not supporting supply management, I am a strong supporter of supply management.

A gentleman who owns a dairy farm came up, when the dairy farmers were here on their lobby day on the Hill, and thanked me for all the hard work I do. He thanked me for coming to visit his farm to talk to him, to talk to his family and understand the challenges they have. I understand those challenges. I support supply management. I also support the Canadian economy. I support other industries and sectors across the country, and those sectors have voiced their concerns with this bill.

When we asked the sponsor of the bill if he had taken the time to consult other industries and other sectors of the Canadian economy, he basically said that he had not, because he didn't think it was necessary.

I think what we're finding at committee is that consultation would have perhaps served this committee well, because we're hearing more and more from other industries in this country about how concerned they are.

I had an opportunity to talk about this bill with some members of the automotive sector when President Biden was here to visit. They were unaware of the bill. As many of us know, auto is a huge part of the Canadian economy. When I talked to them about how this bill would mean supply management is off the table when negotiating trade deals, they were quite concerned. They were surprised they had not been consulted. They were surprised at the potential impact to them, and this is part of the problem. This is why I am saying we need more meetings.

I want to get back to the concerns of the International Cheese Council of Canada, because they are small businesses. They are not able to hire expensive lobbyists to come and try to convince the government of the damage this bill would do to them, so they're relying on us. They're relying on members of Parliament to take the time to listen to their concerns, hear their concerns and deliberate on those concerns.

Again, we have not deliberated on those concerns. The meetings were fast. We crammed in a lot of witnesses on every single panel, so we weren't able to get deep, in-depth answers. We still have not had anyone who is an expert in trade come and testify, other than department officials, and I outlined some of the concerns I have with the evidence they gave this time, as opposed to before.

Again, I'll go back to the International Cheese Council of Canada. They say:

As a result of this unfortunate situation—

I agree. They're just a small player in this, but they're going to be deeply affected.

—Canadian businesses will be unfairly penalized. Not only will they be prevented from generating market growth, but their ability to import cheese products from the UK at an affordable price will be severely constrained: they will lose business. Ultimately, Canadian customers [will] also suffer, as they will face either reduced availability for British cheeses, or the UK cheeses on the grocery [store] shelves will be priced significantly higher.

When they say “significantly higher”—I want to go back to that—they will end up with a 245.5% tariff. I was saying 245%, but it's actually 245.5%.

None of these scenarios deliver an improved outcome for Canadians.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that European exporters will be provided “a Brexit windfall” after 2023 when they will presumably be able to access higher quantities since there will be one less European Union state drawing from quota accessible by EU states (i.e., the WTO TRQ EU pool and the CETA [non-pool]).

It is worth keeping in mind that senior members of the U.K. government have expressed strong interest in including cheese in the future Canada-UK FTA. The passage of C-282, which would prevent addressing such issues in the Canada-UK agreement, would certainly irritate our valued trading partner and most likely constrain Canada's ability to reach a broad deal that leaves both parties satisfied.

This exactly dovetails with the concern I just raised. We are actually in the middle of negotiating a Canada-U.K. FTA, and we know they want some cheese access. We also know that, sometimes, very difficult decisions have to be made for the benefit of the country. Canada has absolutely successfully defended supply management through many FTAs.

When I was asking my questions of department officials, I wanted to talk about this. I asked about how everyone says they are prepared to defend supply management. I asked Mr. Fowler this:

I think one of the things you said in your testimony, and I don't have it all, is that the concessions made in supply management allowed Canada to conclude deals that are in the overall economic best interest of Canada.

I know this is hard, but if we went back in time and we didn't have access—if supply management was off the table and this bill existed and we were renegotiating CUSMA—how difficult would that renegotiation have been?

Mr. Fowler said:

It's a difficult question to answer and it requires me to speculate, which I don't like to do when I'm sitting in this chair—

So I said, “In your experience”, and he continued:

—but as the lead agriculture negotiator at the conclusion of those negotiations, it is my opinion that there was no deal that did not include market access commitments for dairy.

Okay, so we get back to the Canada-U.K. FTA. They're our third-largest trading partner, and we're right now operating under transitional provisions from the Canada-EU.... They very clearly want access with British cheese. This bill would prevent that. We just heard that “there was no deal that did not include market access commitments for dairy” in CUSMA. Are we sitting here today with the knowledge and wisdom amongst us that we can still get a deal done with the U.K. if there's no access for British cheese?

There are two problems here.

Number one, there's the problem with what we heard from the International Cheese Council of Canada and how damaging this would be to the economic interests of all those small businesses—small businesses that we, as parliamentarians, should be looking out for and looking to support.

The second problem, of course, is that this may prevent an FTA from actually happening, and that would be enormously challenging. Sometimes negotiators.... They all say they defend supply management. Conservative governments have done that at the negotiating table. Liberal governments have done that at the negotiating table, and I suspect a hypothetical NDP government would do the same thing. However, if you're going to get a deal, you sometimes have to make really difficult choices, and I know this as a lawyer from when I was in mediations and negotiations. Settlements are tough. I used to always say to my clients, “If you walk out of a mediation or a settlement discussion a little bit unhappy, you know you've probably gotten the right deal; everyone should be a little unhappy in a mediation.”

I think the same thing happens when you're negotiating a free trade agreement. There are things that I'm sure we're unhappy about in CUSMA. I'm sure there are things the Americans are unhappy about in CUSMA. However, when you balance it all out, both sides got what they think is a deal that is in their country's best economic interests, and that is sometimes where the tough things happen.

That certainly.... I'm not trying to minimize the impact to supply-managed sectors in this economy when these things happen. There's absolutely an economic impact; we've heard that. We heard very passionate speeches from people in poultry, dairy and eggs about how challenging they have found some of the access that was negotiated away as a result of an FTA. They get compensation for that. That's absolutely true. That is to compensate them for their lost market access. Whether or not that compensation is sufficient is something that parliamentarians, in their infinite wisdom, can ponder.

The other question you have to ask is this: If we weren't able to make those concessions in a trade agreement on supply management, would we have any of these deals? Would we have a CUSMA? Would we have a CPTPP? Would we have a free trade deal with the EU? I think the answer we heard from our department officials, some of whom were the negotiators.... The answer to that, I think, was pretty much no.

I know there were some questions that were asked. Mr. Cannings asked about canola and asked Mr....I'm going to forget his name. I apologize. He asked how he would feel if he was always the first on the chopping block.

I don't think that's accurate in what happens. I think negotiations on supply management are at the very end. They are of the absolute last resort. Our negotiators go into every single free trade agreement negotiation saying, “We will not grant access to our supply-managed sectors.” If they do it, it's not the first thing. It is the absolute last thing, because they know how important protecting supply management is. Whether it's a Conservative or a Liberal government, that is the most important thing in those negotiations. You have to look at the country as a whole. You have to look at the economic interest of the entire country when you're negotiating a free trade agreement.

The International Cheese Council of Canada talks about the cheese letters. This is something I don't understand and it's also something we didn't really find the time to get into. They go on to say:

As mentioned above, as part of the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement...negotiations, both Canada and the UK agreed to a 3-year transition period during which the UK continues to have access to the WTO cheese TRQ EU pool, despite having become a non-EU country. These “cheese letters” are only valid until the end...of this year.

That's 2023.

Both parties have stated that they will endeavour to seek an outcome for the cheese sector by June 30th, 2023—which is barely three months away. This scenario, if left unchanged, will create significant business disruptions to our industry given the planning horizons for the cheese sector. Indeed, while 2023 may have only just begun, the cheese planning has already been concluded for [this] year. Indeed, planning for 2024 has begun—with the assumption of at least a similar level of access after the cheese letters will have expired.

As such, the ICCC urges Canada to come to an agreement with the UK before the conclusion of the sixth round of negotiations (in June 2023) to extend the validity of the cheese letters until the end of 2024. Ideally, the agreement would be aligned with the announcement of the outcome of the TRQ Review, therefore reducing the number...of transitions faced by the industry in the next 12-24 months.

Note that such an outcome would not provide more access to importers, but would provide an increased amount of certainty at a time [when] our industry is facing significant headwinds.

Increasing access to Canada's protected supply-managed goods is not the only option available to Canada's trade negotiators provided they have the ability to best advocate on behalf of Canada. Options available include the reallocation of existing quota between pools (which Canada has done in the past), or changing the allocation method of existing TRQs, such as [in] the CPTPP.

The ICCC strongly encourages Members to consider the impact of this Bill on our trade relationships. Our trade allies are increasingly dissatisfied with Canada's administration of...dairy TRQs—so much so that the United States has launched a trade dispute, alleging that Canada is failing to respect its existing trade treaty commitments.

Now you have to think that we now have these dairy challenges within USMCA or CUSMA—however you want to describe it. Will this further irritate or agitate that trading relationship with the United States, our absolute number one trading partner? Seventy-plus per cent of our exports go to the United States.

The International Cheese Council of Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Seeback, I'm going back to you, but before I do that....

I stopped in the middle of introducing the officials who are here for this clause-by-clause today.

We have, from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Tom Rosser, assistant deputy minister, market and industry services branch.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Aaron Fowler, associate assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; Stacy-Paul Healy, deputy director, tariffs and market access law division; Pierre Marier, executive director, tariffs and goods market access; and Anna Kapellas, director, treaty law division.

Thank you for joining us today. Given the fact that officials are here to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-282, I have a long speaking list here, which tells me that we're not going to get to clause-by-clause.

Is it the will of the committee to allow our officials to go, and when we're at a point at which we're ready to get on with clause-by-clause, to invite them back? Is it okay with the committee if we allow the officials to leave?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Despite what my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has said, I have a motion that I am going to move now. I am going to move that motion and then speak to that motion.

The motion is this: “That the Standing Committee on International Trade hold one additional meeting to invite back departmental officials prior to clause-by-clause, to testify on Bill C-282 regarding urgent concerns raised about the legislation during witness testimony; and that the committee hold no fewer than three additional meetings to ensure that all witnesses can testify in person.”

The parliamentary secretary has said today that there is no need for further study. I can't disagree with the parliamentary secretary more. Quite frankly, to suggest that we don't support supply management is an egregious statement.

In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, unlike the riding of Toronto where he is from, I have many farmers. I have met with farmers. I meet with farmers all the time, including farmers in the supply-managed sector. To suggest that we don't support supply management is just disingenuous.

To start, I would like to talk about why this motion is so important and why I think departmental officials should be coming back to this committee. I am going to talk a little about what department officials said about this bill when it came before Parliament as Bill C-216 and then contrast that with what they actually said to this committee when this bill came to this Parliament under Bill C-282.

I think members will be shocked at the inconsistencies that government officials gave with respect to a bill that is, in fact, virtually the same in nature.

One would think that department officials would come and give similar testimony. In fact, they might say the exact same things, because that's what we would expect of government officials unless, of course, we are dealing with government officials who have been influenced, perhaps, to say something else.

Let's go to what was said at the previous meeting.

Mr. Forsyth came to speak to Bill C-216 and he gave a statement on that bill. In that statement, he said some of the following:

This bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Government of Canada cannot make any commitment in an international treaty that would have the effect of increasing tariff rate quota volumes or reducing over-quota tariff rates for dairy products, poultry or eggs.

The intent of the bill is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system.

That is very similar to what we heard when Mr. Fowler came and spoke.

This is where things start to get a bit different and a bit interesting. He went on to say, “I'd like to share with you some considerations regarding this proposed amendment to the departmental act.”

This is completely different from what government officials said when they came to testify on Bill C-282.

He went on:

First, by introducing specific policy objectives, proposed amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the departmental act. The act is an organizational statute that sets out, in general terms, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of International Development.

It does not prescribe specific policy objectives. This way, the act sets up a framework that provides flexibility to the government of the day to implement its particular foreign, international trade and development policy without having to change the underlying legislation; thus, it accommodates the policy perspectives that different governments may bring to the management of foreign affairs over time.

As an example, in terms of international trade negotiations, paragraph 10.2(c) of the act provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is to conduct and manage international negotiations as they relate to Canada. Section 13 of the act elaborates on the specific duties of the Minister of International Trade, which include improving the access of Canadian products and services to external markets through trade negotiations.

Second, specific foreign international trade and development policy objectives, including how to address sectoral interests or specific constituent concerns, are generally established elsewhere.

That's a very important thing. I'll say it again:

Second, specific foreign international trade and development policy objectives, including how to address sectoral interests or specific constituent concerns, are generally established elsewhere.

This is not what was said when they came to testify on this bill.

He went on:

For international trade negotiations, negotiating objectives and how to accommodate specific sectoral interests are set in the negotiating mandates that are approved by cabinet. This allows the government of the day to develop specific policy objectives in response to evolving international circumstances.

Third, Parliament has the final say over the outcome of any international trade negotiations. Parliament ultimately decides whether or not to pass the legislation necessary to implement any free trade agreement. Additionally, moving forward, trade agreements will be subject to even more parliamentary oversight. The updated policy on tabling of treaties strengthens transparency of trade negotiations and provides additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new free trade agreements. The new policy includes the tabling of a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new FTA, objectives for negotiations and, finally, an economic impact assessment.

Fourth, amendment of the departmental act in the way in which C-216 proposes carries risks.

To me, this is a stunning statement, because none of this was said by department officials when they came back for Bill C-282. What happened? Why was there the sudden change?

When it was first here, this bill carried risks. When they came back to talk about it this time, suddenly there are no risks. There are no risks in their statement.

He continued:

By limiting Canada's ability to engage on these issues, this amendment—

This is really important.

—would invite negotiating partners to narrow the scope of their own potential commitments, taking issues off the table from the outset of negotiations, likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada.

Let me add emphasis to that. He said “likely in the areas of commercial interest to Canada”.

The last time officials came to this committee to talk about the bill, they were showing concerns. To me, they're showing grave concerns. It reminds me of that movie, A Few Good Men, when Jack Nicholson says, “Is there another kind?” These are grave concerns. They narrow possible outcomes, preclude certain compromises and make it harder to reach an agreement.

This paragraph in and of itself is a massive diversion from what government officials testified at committee on Bill C-282. If this were all, I'd be concerned. I'd probably very concerned, but guess what? It's not all they said, because they continued with their concerns. Their entire conversation with this committee was about their concerns, yet on Bill C-282, there was no discussion of concerns. There was absolutely none.

They may have had some concerns under questioning, but I'm going to continue. Doug Forsyth said:

Addressing the interest of any specific sector in the act would set a precedent that could lead to demands for additional amendments to reflect other foreign and trade policy objectives, including sectoral interests, further constraining the government's ability to negotiate and sign international trade agreements and, more generally, to manage Canada's international relations.

This is a clarion call of concern by government officials. What they're actually saying to the committee is, “If we do this for one sector of the Canadian economy, how can we then say to another sector that they don't get to have similar protection?”

For example, I know the steel industry is facing incredible competition from steel in China. This is a huge problem for the steel industry. They also have extensive competition from the United States. What if the steel industry said we no longer want any country to be able to have steel come into Canada as part of our free trade agreement, because it's far too damaging to our sector? You did it for supply management, so why won't you do it for steel? You can imagine where that goes.

He went on to say:

Lastly, maintaining the nature of the departmental act unchanged does not affect the government's policy to defend the integrity of Canada's supply management system, nor the ability of negotiators to defend this position at the negotiating table.

He's saying that supply management can be defended, as it always has been, at the negotiating table by the Government of Canada. He seems to be saying that this bill's not necessary. Again, this is very much in contrast with the information that was provided by government officials to the committee on Bill C-282.

He continued:

The government has made public commitments not to make further concessions on supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In fact, Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system, including its three pillars: production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

Most recently, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement fully protects Canada's dairy, poultry and egg sectors and provides no new incremental market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product.

I'm going to get back to the Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement. That is also something that I think is going to be affected by this and by Bill C-282. It's something that we really haven't discussed in any great detail.

He then said:

Where new market access has been provided, specifically and exclusively in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, the access was deemed necessary to include an agreement that was in Canada's interest.

That's similar to a response to a question I asked, which was that the only reason, effectively, that we were able to make those agreements was that there was some access to supply management.

He went on to say:

While new access was provided in those agreements, the supply management system and its three pillars were maintained. These outcomes were part of the overall balance of concessions through which Canada maintained preferential market access to the United States and secured new access to the European Union, Japan, Vietnam and other key markets.

In conclusion, while the spirit of Bill C-216 is consistent with the government's policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system, amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act as proposed by the bill would change its nature and create risks.

That's really quite fascinating.

In conclusion, Mr. Fowler said in our study....

This is really shocking to me. It's shocking that a government official would come and make one statement on the exact same bill and then come and make another statement on this bill. I think that they should be back at this committee to answer for this contradiction. We should get to the bottom of why there is this contradiction.

The contradiction is this. In his remarks to this committee studying Bill C-282, he said the following:

In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.

It is the exact opposite of what Mr. Fowler said in his statement on Bill C-216. Think about the implications of that for a moment. We have a senior government official who comes to the committee with a bill and outlines serious concerns. I'm going to talk more about that, because under questioning, he has even more concerns than in his statement. He then comes back to the committee, gives a statement and says the exact opposite. Nothing has changed. The bill is the same. Supply management is the same. Nothing has changed.

Was this gentleman put under political pressure to change the statement that was made so that it would be less controversial? This is deeply troubling.

To me, Madam Chair, I don't think it matters which party you're from or where you stand on this issue. Every parliamentarian around this table should be asking themselves why a government official would come to committee, give one version of concern about a bill and come back another time on effectively the exact same bill and say there's nothing to see here; the bill is great, and it will strengthen our defence of supply management.

You might say to yourself, well, you know, maybe he misspoke on Bill C-216. Maybe he got a little excited in his opening statement and misspoke. Unfortunately, that is not what happened, because under questioning, more and more and more concerns were raised that were not raised under Bill C-282.

Mr. Aboultaif asked him a question:

What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?

I think it's very interesting to see what the response was to that question, so let's go to that:

Thank you for the question.

Madam Chair, I will start, and perhaps my colleagues will join in afterwards.

From a trade negotiation perspective, Canada has a long history in negotiating free trade agreements and has been at the forefront of negotiating free trade agreements for the last 25 or 30 years.

I would just note off the top that our supply management system, as you've indicated, has not stopped us or hampered us from concluding any trade agreements, but I think what is certainly possible is that the wording proposed for this bill will give trade negotiating partners pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada.

The emphasis is added.

That's as contrasted with:

In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.

Here, this bill will give trade negotiators pause with respect to wanting to engage with Canada. From a trade negotiator's perspective, when we start a negotiation, we like to start with the full possibility of access in the back of our minds, whether or not that's where we end up. It's rarely the case that you would see 100% access in any free trade agreement, but you'd like to at least start with that notion in mind.

As you go through a negotiation with your various partners, you find that interests are enunciated, elaborated and narrowed down. You understand what's in the art of the possible, but you like to start as wide as possible when you do launch those negotiations. When you start from a very narrow band of possibilities and then that gets narrowed, the scope of the negotiations and the scope of the agreement is very much smaller than what you would have seen otherwise.

If we were to end up with this bill as it is written—and I'm going to emphasize this—if we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say, “That's fine, Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada out of play,” and then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie, as it were.

Madam Chair, these are significant concerns. These are not small concerns that are being raised. This is not someone saying that this bill would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada's supply management system by enshrining it into law. In fact to me, this is saying almost the exact opposite. This is saying that this bill is highly problematic.

We can look at what else was said about this bill, the current versus what was said before.

On Bill C-282, we had a statement from Mr. Rosser, assistant deputy minister, market industry services branch, Department of Agriculture.

Honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade on its review of Bill C‑282.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC for short, works closely with and supports Global Affairs Canada in advancing Canada’s free trade agenda, playing an important role in trade negotiations, particularly in areas related to market access for agricultural goods.

As said by my counterpart Mr. Fowler, the Government of Canada has had a long-standing policy to defend the integrity of Canada’s supply management system for dairy products, poultry and eggs. This includes clear commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. The bill is consistent with this policy.

That is something I don't think anyone has disputed. We're all singing from the same hymn book in that sense.

Canada’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg farmers are part of the backbone of rural communities across the country, generating almost $13 billion in farm-gate sales in 2021, and creating over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities across Canada.

I absolutely agree with that statement. In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, we have poultry, egg and dairy farms. I've had the pleasure to visit examples of all of those. I am particularly impressed with how our dairy farmers take care of their cows and with the quality product they are able to produce. I am 100% in support of supply management.

He continued:

With respect to the market access provided to Canada’s trade partners, it has only been provided in exceptional cases in regard to landmark trade agreements, such as the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, or WTO, CETA, the CPTPP and CUSMA. While not taken lightly, these trade agreements are overwhelmingly in the interest of Canada and to the overall benefit of Canada’s agricultural sector.

Furthermore, in the case of CUSMA it's important to remember that the original negotiating position in the United States was the full elimination of the supply management system. The outcome in CUSMA, while difficult and challenging, allows the supply management system to continue functioning with respect to its three pillars.

The Government of Canada is also fully and fairly compensating producers...with supply-managed commodities who have lost market share under the three agreements. As announced this past November, dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors are expected to share more than $1.7 billion in direct payments and investment programs in response to the impacts related to CUSMA. This is in addition to the over $3 billion in direct payments in investment programs for CETA and CPTPP. These programs will help drive innovation and growth in the supply-managed sectors.

In conclusion, the integrity of the supply management system has been successfully defended during multiple trade negotiations. The Government of Canada is working hard to ensure that the supply management system remains strong and that producers and processors operating in the system remain productive and sustainable.

Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations, and as such is fully consistent with existing policy.

Under Bill C-282, then, it would appear they are on the same page. There's nothing to see here. It's great. It's fully consistent with existing policy.

Let's go back to Bill C-216. Mr. Aaron Fowler, chief agricultural negotiator and director general, trade agreements and negotiations, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, responds to Mr. Aboultaif's question. Just so that we can all keep up with where we are, this was Mr. Aboultaif's question:

What I'm interested in is this. Although we've signed so many trade agreements without having to really jeopardize the supply management system and we have successfully done that throughout its history—and we have so many trade agreements that I don't have to mention it at the moment—the question is, are there any live examples out there that can advise us on what the consequences will be in the long run if Bill C-216 is implemented, since we know that we will lose that flexibility and we will be limiting our team of negotiators on the road when they try to achieve trade agreements with countries in the world?

The response was as follows:

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

I would certainly agree with everything Doug has said so far and associate myself with his response.

That response, as we all know, is that there are grave concerns about this bill and the implications it will have with respect to negotiating trade agreements.

His response continued:

I believe the question was whether there are examples of similar measures being imposed by some of our trading partners around the world and what the consequences of those might be. I have to say I am not aware of any legislative prohibition on our trading partners' ability to discuss an issue.

This is interesting, because some members of this committee, when they were asking questions, were saying that other countries have things they won't negotiate. To me, that would appear to be an incorrect position. I don't think any other country in the world has a legislative prohibition on what you can negotiate in an international trade agreement.

The statement continued:

Were such a prohibition in place, I feel that depending on the level of commercial interest that Canada had in the matter that was covered by such a prohibition, we would use the exploratory stage of our trade negotiations to indicate that we see this as an important issue that needs to be discussed in the context of the negotiation.

Free trade agreements are really about changing the legislative and regulatory regime that our trading partners have in place in order to create commercial opportunities for Canadian exporters, so I suspect that were our interests sufficiently significant for us to want to discuss that issue in the negotiations, we would make that [very] clear at the exploratory stage and base our decision on whether to move forward in the negotiations on our partners' indication of their capacity to have discussions in that area.

On the specific question of whether there are examples I could point to, I have to say offhand that I can't think of any similar prohibitions that are in place.

Mr. Aboultaif then asked another question: “What would you see as the reaction of other sectors if something like Bill C-216 went forward? What would you see as the reaction as far as opportunities on the world stage...go?”

Mr. Forsyth said, “Do you mean reaction from Canadian stakeholders, or from—” and Mr. Aboultaif replied, “Yes, I mean Canadian stakeholders.”

Mr. Forsyth said, “Honestly, I think if this did go forward, the reaction we would see would be other groups seeking to have their concerns, their issues, inserted into the departmental act as well.”

What we're hearing very clearly here under Bill C-216, and perhaps not as clearly under Bill C-282, is that this bill is, in many ways, a Trojan Horse. There are grave concerns about what would happen with other sectors of the economy that felt they were vulnerable in a trade agreement. They might be saying that they think a member of Parliament should come forward with a bill that should say that in no future trade agreement.... There should be no access to pork into the Canadian market, because they feel they're losing too much market share.

That was a concern raised by department officials when we heard this in Bill C-216. It's not a concern that has been significantly raised this time.

There was another question for Mr. Forsyth. This was from Ms. Rachel Bendayan.

Sir, if I may follow up, I believe you mentioned in your introduction, and I have certainly heard from legal experts within government, that policy objectives are not normally found within the departmental act. This is not the usual instrument to include policy objectives like the one regarding supply management. Can you perhaps give us examples or let us know where these types of important policy objectives should be found, if not in this particular act?

Mr. Forsyth replied, as follows:

I think that assessment is correct. It would be unusual to find policy-prescriptive issues like this in a departmental act. I'm not aware of any departmental acts that include them.

I think that where we see policy prescriptions like this is in the words enunciated from the government. It's [very] clear that this is a Government of Canada position, a policy position. You find it in speeches. You find it in departmental legislation, for example, at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and you find it in various places like that. I think it would be unusual to put something like this within the context of the departmental act.

What we're seeing here from government officials, again, is this. We are seeing that, in conclusion, Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations. As such, it is fully consistent with existing policy.

I read through the entire statement that was made by Mr. Rosser. None of that raises even a scintilla of the concern that was being raised by government officials under Bill C-216. I'm yet again left with some significant consternation as to why there would be such a different view from government departments towards a bill—Bill C-216—that was, as far as I can tell, identical to the bill that is being put forward now.

It raises enormous questions. It raises questions that I believe this committee should dig into. It raises questions that we should absolutely as a committee be very interested in getting to the bottom of.

For my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to suggest that everything has been heard that needs to be heard and that we should just move on to clause-by-clause in the face of this very contradictory evidence from department officials, really does not make a lot of sense. It gives me enormous concern about why there would be such a change in position and view about the bill, and not just that it has changed. It gives me concern as to which statements are the ones the committee should look at to say that this is what the department officials think. Do department officials believe what they said on Bill C-216, or do they believe what they said when they came and spoke on C-282?

I'm left confused. I'm left extraordinarily confused. I think other members of the committee should be confused as well. I think Liberal members of this committee should be confused. I think NDP members of this committee should be confused. I understand that Bloc Québécois members may be confused but aren't interested because it's a Bloc Québécois private member's bill, and they want it to be passed. I would feel the same way about one of my colleagues' bills—I would want to help that colleague get the bill passed—but I think the rest of us should be very concerned.

Mr. Dhaliwal had a question about Bill C-216:

My question is for Mr. Forsyth. He mentioned numerous times that there are some risks involved.

That's talking about his statement numerous times that there were risks involved. There was no mention of risks in the opening statement under Bill C-282.

One of them, he mentioned, is a narrow outcome. I would like to ask him to explain or elaborate on those risks and the potential impacts.

It's interesting that he asked a question about narrow outcomes, because when we had witnesses come last Thursday, the canola growers or the Canadian canola—I'm going to find it here—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to thank you for opening up this session. We have concluded the Bill C-282 hearings with various witnesses over several meetings—I believe it was at least four meetings with respect to this bill. I think this is an important piece of legislation, and I'm very pleased that we're moving today to clause-by-clause analysis with the goal of returning this bill to the chamber.

I noted that, unfortunately, there appear to be some members of the committee who continue to seek and put forward motions to prolong the study of this bill. I don't believe such motions are warranted. I wanted to state very clearly that I and several of my colleagues will be voting against such motions. It is our strong view that this bill has been studied quite thoroughly and comprehensively, and that we have enough information before us to evaluate it appropriately and make judgment on it.

It is a short bill. I'm hopeful we will be able to conclude clause-by-clause analysis today.

I'm particularly puzzled by some of the policies of certain members of this committee to try to prolong the study of this bill, given that all parties in the House of Commons voted in favour of this bill, including members of His Majesty's official opposition, yet we still are being presented with Conservative proposals to prolong the study of the bill.

To my mind, that seems to work at cross-purposes with the voting patterns of the very same members of this committee, and indeed with the directions of their party. I would view those things as simply obstacles, in terms of the passage of this bill, that are unwelcome by me and by many of my colleagues, including from many of the other parties.

I would point out that this should not be tolerated and that we should work diligently to get this back into the chamber, given that all parties, including His Majesty's official opposition, profess to be supporters of supply management. There's an easy way of demonstrating that, and that is by actually proceeding with the passage of this bill and returning it to the House of Commons for further review and for ultimate passage, ideally, in that chamber as well.

I'll leave it at that piece, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 56 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

With regard to interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French audio. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding.

Please also note that during the meeting it is not permitted to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

Should any technical challenges arise, please inform us and we will attempt to correct that very quickly.

Today we are meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

Welcome to all the officials who are here at this particular moment.

I've had Mr. Virani indicate that he wanted to speak, and I have Mr. Seeback. Before I introduce the officials, I'll refer to you, Mr. Virani, for a moment.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

What I've said, and what our government has been clear about, is that we will not be providing access to supply-managed sectors in any future free trade agreements. That is a commitment that this government has made to the supply-managed sector in Canada.

I don't know if the member is saying to me that they're no longer supporting Bill C-282, because you have been supporting Bill C-282, as have the rest of us.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I'd appreciate it if you could check on that, because this isn't the first time we've contacted your office.

Now I'd like to get back to free trade agreements. In your opinion, if Bill C‑282 passes, would it make it harder to negotiate other free trade agreements?

[Paulin Bouchard]

We have had a lot of consultation during the study on the former Bill C‑216 and the current Bill C‑282. I firmly believe that our elected officials should send a clear signal on what we can put or not put on the negotiating table. As I said earlier, negotiators will do their job and will create wealth through these agreements.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Here's my concern. Earlier on, it was the Canadian Canola Growers Association that talked about how predictability and stability would be lost if Bill C-282 was implemented. However, we are hearing the supply-managed sectors talk about predictability and stability being gained by having this legislation. How do we reconcile those two competing parts?

Here at committee, we have had eight organizations come forward. We've had Pulse Canada, the Grain Growers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders’ Association, the Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance. Today, three organizations—the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the International Cheese Council of Canada and the Canola Council of Canada—have brought forward their concerns.

I'm asking, from your standpoint, whether you believe that it would benefit this committee to hear more testimony from organizations on both sides, as well as trade experts, to advise this committee on the proper steps we should be taking to ensure that any legislation we have is the best piece of legislation we can implement.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

I want to build upon what my colleague mentioned earlier today. Several of us around this table support the supply management sector. In fact, I had meetings with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario just the other day in my office. In fact, I had the opportunity to work for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

Having said that, we are here to look at Bill C-282 and reconcile the two different kinds of visions that we're seeing here today.

I'm going to go to Mr. Sherman first.

Did the sponsor of the legislation reach out to your organization to seek feedback on this potential legislation?

[Paulin Bouchard, President, Fédération des producteurs d’œufs du Québec]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the invitation.

I am Paulin Bouchard, president of the Fédération des producteurs d'œufs du Québec. I am here with our vice-president, Mr. Sylvain Lapierre. We are both egg producers from Quebec.

Our federation represents 199 producers whose 5.7 million laying hens produce 1.8 billion eggs per year. We also represent the interests of 108 replacement chicken producers and six egg producers who work for the vaccine sector, that is to say a pharmaceutical company that is involved in protecting Canadians' health.

Right now, all the federal parties and witnesses are saying that they support supply management, but for different reasons. On the one side, we have MPs that support Bill C‑282 to protect supply management production from any more concessions of our market shares to foreign producers. These MPs know that the advantages for Canadian consumers and citizens are better than what we could hope to gain during the negotiation of any future trade deals.

On the other side, when we look at the testimony provided by witnesses at previous meetings, we see that for others, the supply management system is just a trade currency that is used by Canadian negotiators. Indeed, we get the message that those MPs believe in supply management, because the protected markets are useful aces in the hole that Canadian negotiators can use to deal with foreign negotiators over domestic market shares.

You have heard previous witnesses state that without this ace up their sleeves, Canadian negotiators would be sitting ducks at negotiations. That is basically saying that Canadian negotiators have nothing to bargain with, contrary to their foreign counterparts, and would not be able to gain any concessions without this ace. It makes us wonder what negotiators from other countries do when they don't have supply managed markets.

I would remind you that it is possible to hammer out trade deals without sacrificing supply‑managed production. Canada has signed 12 trade agreements since 1997 and has negotiated with 15 countries, without giving any access to its domestic markets. Why do Canadian negotiators feel such a need to trade our protected markets whereas American and Japanese negotiators are able to make gains without putting their rice, sugar and cotton markets on the negotiating table?

During your committee meetings, witnesses and MPs have been unable to provide statistics on Canada's revenue and exports volumes after conceding market shares to foreign exporters. Supply management producers can provide figures for their losses, and Canadian taxpayers can say how much they have had to pay to compensate for the concessions made.

If Bill C‑282 had been passed at the beginning of this century, we would have never conceded our market shares. Bill C‑282 is a necessary tool to protect Canadian citizens and consumers and a system that everyone benefits from. Voting against Bill C‑282 is voting for individual interests as opposed to collective ones and sacrificing our production during the next round of negotiations.

Madam Chair, everything has been said during the meetings held on Bills C-216and C‑282. Quebec's egg producers are asking parliamentarians—

[Troy Sherman, Director, Government Relations, Canola Council of Canada]

Thank you, Chair Sgro and members of the committee.

My name is Troy Sherman, and I am the director of government relations for the Canola Council of Canada. The council encompasses all links in the canola value chain. Our members include canola growers, life science companies, grain handlers, exporters, processors and others. Our shared goal is ensuring the industry's continued growth and success, and doing so by meeting global demand for canola and canola-based products, which include food, feed and fuel.

Canola's success is Canada's success. Our industry represents almost $30 billion in economic activity, annually, 207,000 jobs across the country, $12 billion in wages and the largest share of farm cash receipts in the country. With over 90% of Canadian canola exported to as many as 50 different markets, the canola industry depends on ambitious and fair science- and rules-based trade.

For many years, we have worked with Canada's trade negotiators to make sure Canada and Canadian canola are well positioned to help feed the world. Central to these trade negotiations is the foundational principle that negotiators should be empowered to reach the best agreements for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Negotiators have been able to achieve this by availing themselves of all the tools in our trade-negotiating tool box, working closely with industry, academics and civil society to ensure Canada's trade agreements achieve what is in our national interest.

Bill C-282 risks undermining Canada's reputation as a trading nation and, consequently, our national interest during trade negotiations. It does this in a number of ways, including putting in place legislative prohibitions on what our negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table and diminishing Canada's desirability as a market with which to pursue trade agreements.

On the first point, Bill C-282 proposes prohibiting what Canada's trade negotiators can discuss at the negotiation table. To the best of our knowledge, and as noted by officials at Global Affairs Canada, no other country legislatively prohibits negotiators from discussing certain topics during trade negotiations. Canada would be an outlier, and needlessly so.

In June 2021, an official from Global Affairs appeared before this very committee on Bill C-216, Bill C-282's predecessor. At the time, they stated the following: “Canada has been able to successfully conclude 15 trade agreements that cover 51 countries while preserving Canada's supply management system”. The official went on to say:

If we were to start from the position that we would not be dealing with 100% of the items that we would negotiate on, it does risk having an agreement that's not necessarily completely beneficial to Canadian exporters and producers and it does risk being an agreement that does not necessarily provide the full economic benefits to Canada that one might have expected.

What was true when it was said two years ago remains true today. Bill C-282 is a solution in search of a problem, and it risks undermining other industries and sectors of the economy, including Canadian canola. Passing Bill C-282 will set a dangerous precedent for additional amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, to either protect certain industries or mandate restrictive language in trade agreements in specific areas of interest.

Regarding the second challenge mentioned, Bill C-282 will significantly diminish Canada's desirability as a country with which to pursue trade negotiations. By legislating that our negotiators are not able to include supply management as part of the negotiations, Canada is significantly shrinking the trade prospect pie and potentially forcing Canadian concessions in other areas of interest. If Canada is viewed as an obstacle for new entrants to plurilateral agreements, or less attractive to engage with—given our legislated red line on supply management—our trading partners may question the value of having Canada at the negotiation table.

To conclude, Bill C-282 represents a significant departure from Canada's principled, fair and rules-based free trade posture. No industry, sector or issue should be off the table during trade negotiations. Our trade negotiators have delivered tangible results and benefits for the Canadian economy and industries, including canola.

[Ian McFall, Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council]

Thank you, Ms. Chair.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

My name is Ian McFall, and I chair the board of directors of the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. While I’m here as the chair of CPEPC, I’m also the executive vice-president and family shareholder at Burnbrae Farms, a family-owned company with egg grading, processing and farming operations in five provinces across Canada.

I’m joined here today by our association’s president and CEO, Jean-Michel Laurin.

CPEPC represents Canadian hatcheries, egg graders and processors, chicken and turkey processors, and further processors. While our members are not supply-managed, you can see us as representing Canadian poultry and egg farmers’ main customers. Collectively, our membership represents more than 180 establishments of all sizes, and processes over 90% of the poultry and egg products raised by Canadian farmers.

Our association strongly supports Canada’s supply management system and international trade policies that are consistent with the system. We believe Bill C-282 is consistent with that system.

The poultry and egg supply chain that we represent, the people we employ and the communities we touch depend on ensuring that we have a strong supply management system in Canada. The market access granted for poultry and egg products through CPTPP and CUSMA, in addition to the existing market access through WTO, will have an impact on supply-managed producers and processors. It is worth noting that our industry is still adjusting to the escalating impact of these agreements. For instance, in the case of CPTPP, Chile just ratified the agreement. It also just banned poultry exports due to avian influenza.

For these agreements, it is worth noting that the government is providing financial compensation to supply-managed sectors. In the case of poultry and egg processors, the government is contributing to plant investments through the supply management processing investment fund. This fund will provide, on average, $17 million per year over six years to poultry and egg processors looking to increase their productivity and improve their competitiveness. This fund is in high demand. After being in place for almost a full year, it is now clear that it will benefit only some processors given the high volume of demand for this fund. It is also worth noting that the funding allocated under this fund represents a fraction of the expected impact of the trade agreements.

Bill C-282 is tied to Canada’s import controls regime. This is one of the three pillars that are key to upholding the supply management system. We acknowledge that some have concerns with the bill. Trade agreements are critical to non-supply managed commodities. We believe Canada can protect its supply-managed sectors while successfully negotiating trade deals that benefit Canadians. It is also our understanding that it is not the intent of the bill to restrict Canada’s ability to negotiate new agreements.

Access to imports in controlled and limited volumes for our members is also critical to supply-managed sectors. It is our understanding that Bill C-282 will not change the market access already granted to trading partners under current agreements or impact other trade legislation.

In closing, CPEPC believes this bill is consistent with Canada’s supply management system, a system that we strongly support.

We thank you for your time and would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Tim Klompmaker]

Bill C-282 will give people the confidence to invest in farms. It'll give the confidence for them to start up smaller farms. Certainly, with smaller farms, we do have the advantage of.... With supply management, we have very rigorous food safety and animal care programs. That goes across all of our farms, so it does maintain those small family farms.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

With the implementation of Bill C-282, will it adequately address the concerns and needs of small-scale chicken farmers across Canada?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today and I also want to apologize for our tardiness. When we have votes, it's never easy for our witnesses.

Mr. Ruel, do you think Bill C‑282 is necessary or is compensation enough?

[Joe Dal Ferro, Chair, International Cheese Council of Canada]

Good afternoon. My name is Joe Dal Ferro, and I'm the chair of the International Cheese Council of Canada. I am joined by Helen Dallimore, representing one of our associate members, Coombe Castle.

The ICCC was founded in 1976. We are an association of small and medium-sized cheese importers and their suppliers. Our members are Canadian-based importers of cheese. Our associate members include cheese producers and processors from various countries that have international trade agreements with Canada.

The ICCC has coexisted with Canada’s supply-managed dairy sector for over four decades and accepts the rationale underlying Canada’s supply management system. We are not advocating for its dismantling. Rather, we are continuing to work with the government to ensure that its TRQ allocation and administration system respects our trade commitments in the dairy sector. Moreover, many of our members, including my company, are proud to be distributors of domestic cheeses across all over Canada.

I am here today to offer the committee several compelling reasons why Bill C-282 should not be supported by parliamentarians.

First, parliamentarians must seriously consider the significant negative financial impacts that this bill will have on the many Canadian small to medium-sized businesses that import cheese. The future for Canadian importers of cheese is already uncertain. This bill is only adding to the unpredictability. The unknown outcome of Global Affairs' TRQ phase II review—which initially started in 2019—is creating ambiguity and inhibiting business planning. Moreover, it may require importers to significantly change their business methods and model if the new quota policy is unfavourable to our industry.

If Bill C-282 becomes law, it risks obstructing even the possibility of addressing the market access requested by the U.K. as part of the ongoing bilateral negotiations. If the U.K. is forced to settle for a portion of the WTO non-EU quota, Canadian importers will be limited to exclusively using this method of access to import British cheeses. This pool is already fully utilized with cheeses from the U.S., New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway, among others. Otherwise, they will find themselves faced with three options, all of which will result in financial harm to Canadian businesses.

These are the three unappealing options. The first is ceasing to import U.K. cheese products altogether in Canada, meaning that many Canadians’ beloved British cheeses could be gone forever. The second is substituting some of their imports from other non-EU countries with imports from the U.K., ensuring a shortage of available cheeses from multiple jurisdictions. The third is importing U.K. cheese with the prohibitive 245% tariff. This would nearly triple the cost of certain cheeses already on the market and make them unaffordable to all but the richest of Canadians. In this era of rising inflation, parliamentarians don’t want to forcibly make imported cheeses an even more expensive proposition.

All of these unfortunate scenarios unfairly penalize Canadian businesses, despite the increasing demand by Canadians for British cheeses. Businesses' ability to meet this demand at an affordable price will be severely constrained if this bill passes. Not only will these Canadian businesses be prevented from generating market growth, but they will almost certainly lose business, which will mean job losses in Canada.

Let me be clear. The CPTPP is not a solution for Canadian importers of British cheeses.

Based on these facts, we are also concerned that Bill C-282 could have a dramatic impact on our trade relationships. Our trade allies have shown increasing dissatisfaction with the administration of Canada’s dairy TRQs—so much so that two of our trade partners have already launched trade disputes, alleging that Canada is failing to respect its existing trade agreements.

For these reasons, the ICCC respectfully urges members of this committee to consider the consequences of this bill and to vote against Bill C-282.

Thank you.

[Tim Klompmaker, Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Tim Klompmaker. I'm a chicken farmer from Norwood, Ontario, and chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada. Supply management is the reason why I am a farmer. My parents took over the farm from my grandparents in 1972, and supply management was the reason why they encouraged me to purchase my own farm in 1984.

My wife and I raised three sons, who are now also chicken farmers thanks to supply management. It is a uniquely Canadian system that supports generations of farmers and feeds millions of Canadians. We're all here to talk about the same thing. Whether we're government officials or members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or other farm groups, we're all worried about the same thing: How do we continue to provide safe, high-quality food to feed people? We're all unified in the fact that farmers feed Canadians and the world. We require the tools and support to continue doing so in our own unique ways.

Bill C-282 is welcomed by Chicken Farmers of Canada. It would ensure the Government of Canada grants no further concessions in the supply management sectors in any future trade deal. We cannot afford to lose part of our market with every trade agreement. The Chicken Farmers of Canada board of directors, comprising farmers, processors, further processors and members of the food service sector, carefully determines how much chicken Canada needs for the coming months, and farmers from coast to coast produce that amount. It also considers how much is coming from imports, making it predictable and reliable. Any additional access granted undermines the import control pillar of the system, meaning it can't function as intended.

I can't stress this enough: If supply management is weakened, the Canadian chicken sector cannot guarantee safe, local chicken raised with care for Canadians, threatening food security in all 10 of the provinces in which we operate. Supply management allows our sector to enforce mandatory, audited food safety and animal care programs under the “raised by a Canadian farmer” brand. These enforcement measures are of particular importance during outbreaks of animal diseases like avian influenza, as we are seeing now. Guaranteed food safety and animal care programs are some of the many reasons why supply management works.

With headlines stating that food security is at risk due to weather events, disease and global conflict, the last thing we want is for consumers to fear there will be no food to feed their families. A supply-managed farmer's job, first and foremost, is providing food for Canadians. Every time Canada enters trade negotiations, this ability to provide is at risk. Trade is important to our country, but it should not harm supply management, particularly given that Canadian chicken production is only 1.3% of world chicken production.

Recently, the CPTPP and CUSMA trade agreements have significantly impacted Canadian chicken farmers. We have never stood in the way of Canada achieving a fair deal. Our sector provides stability at home, while sectors with greater export potential can pursue opportunities in international markets. We also note that most countries have sensitive sectors they wish to protect. For example, New Zealand has strict biosecurity laws that impose extreme cooking requirements on imported poultry products.

By adopting legislation that ensures no further access to supply management is granted in any future trade agreement, parliamentarians will show Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers that they stand by them, just as we have always been there for Canadians.

Supporting this bill is not bad trade policy. It is good domestic policy. Supply management means looking out for Canadians.

[Roger Chevraux, Chair, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for the opportunity for the Canadian Canola Growers Association to appear on your study of Bill C-282. We appear in opposition of the bill.

I am joining today from Killam, Alberta, where our family farm, Century 12 Farms, grows cereals and oilseeds. I also serve as the chair of both Alberta Canola and the Canadian Canola Growers Association, known as the CCGA. I'm joined by Rick White, CCGA's president and CEO, who's based in Winnipeg.

I mentioned the name of my farm because it tells you about our family farm. My great-grandfather started farming on the land in 1912, which makes ours one of the oldest farms in our region of the Prairies. This makes me a fourth-generation farmer and makes my 27-year-old son a fifth-generation farmer.

CCGA represents Canada's 43,000 Canadian farmers on issues that impact their success. Canola is the number one revenue source, earning Canadian farmers $13.8 billion in revenue in 2022. That's more than cereals, horticulture and livestock, including dairy and poultry. It contributes roughly $30 billion in annual economic activity and creates over 200,000 jobs nationally.

Canola's success and its contribution to our economy is based on innovation, international trade and the series of free trade agreements successfully concluded by the government. As the world's largest producer and exporter of canola, Canada represents 90% of what we grow as seed, oil and meal, which were valued at $14.4 billion in 2022.

Free trade agreements eliminate barriers and provide clear rules of trade, providing predictability and stability and reducing market risks. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement, now the CUSMA, spurred development of the Canadian canola sector in growing acres, attracting value-added activities and generating the innovation needed to grow a sustainable crop and to be partners in Canada's climate change commitments. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership diversified market opportunities for oil and meal, keeping the processing at home and generating a multiplier effect in rural areas as well as urban centres.

I want to state up front that I am not opposed to supply management or to the concept of protecting it. However, I am opposed to this bill because it is a bad policy that is not necessary, I believe, to protect our supply management system.

Bill C-282 is bad policy on many fronts.

First, if passed, Canada's attractiveness as a free trade agreement partner would diminish, which would adversely affect Canada's ability to launch and enter into new negotiations. Canada's leverage in successfully renewing the CUSMA under President Trump or in negotiating a membership to and conclusion of the CPTPP agreement would have been greatly diminished if such a bill were in place.

Second, the bill would constrain negotiators' ability to seek the best and most ambitious deal for Canada as a whole. According to the department's website, Canada is negotiating bilateral or regional FTAs with a dozen partners, as well as advancing World Trade Organization modernization and renewal of the Agreement on Agriculture. Robust negotiating strategies, flexibility and compromise are required to achieve successful conclusions. This fact was acknowledged during the department's testimony on February 16 regarding the CUSMA.

Third, the bill creates a dangerous precedent that invites our trade partners to also seek exclusions and undermines Canada's reputation globally. CCGA supports ongoing government efforts to diversify our exports and strengthen free trade worldwide. This bill contradicts those efforts and sends a strong protectionist signal globally at a time where it has never been more important to avoid new trade barriers and to discourage trade and/or access to food.

Canada needs a new agriculture trade strategy where FTAs are a central trade policy tool. The Indo-Pacific strategy commits $2.3 billion over the next five years to expand our political, economic and security relationships with the Indo-Pacific region, including through FTAs with Association of Southeast Asian Nations, India and Indonesia. Countries that are developing their—

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 54 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I need to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we thank you for your patience and understanding. Please also note that, during the meeting, it is not permitted to to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning technical tests for witnesses, I have been informed that all witnesses have completed the required tests. Should any technical challenges arise, please let us know. We will suspend the meeting momentarily to ensure translation.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, the committee is resuming the study of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act regarding supply management.

We have with us today for the first panel, from the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Rick White, president and chief executive officer, and Roger Chevraux by video conference. From the Chicken Farmers of Canada, we have Yves Ruel, associate executive director, and Tim Klompmaker, chair. From the International Cheese Council of Canada, we have Joe Dal Ferro, chair, and Helen Dallimore, associate member.

My apologies to all of you for the delay, but Parliament has to function and the votes have to happen.

We're going to ask you all to keep your remarks as brief as you can, up to four minutes each.

We will start with Mr. Chevraux, please.

Go ahead.

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.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Pelissero, what amazes me is hearing several elected officials being in favour of supply management, but not wanting to put it on paper. I'll give a silly example: when you buy a house, you sign an offer to purchase.

I'd like you to explain why Bill C‑282 is important to your productions. Why do you need it? What would be the impact of the bill if a government later decides to put supply management back on the table?

[Keith Currie]

There's been a lot of focus on.... Obviously, the intent of the bill is to protect supply management. A part of this has to be improving the conversation, as I mentioned earlier, around non-trade barriers. Going forward, hopefully the enactment of Bill C-282 will impel our negotiators and trade officials to make sure that those non-trade barriers aren't in the way of successful trading between countries. We really need to make sure that this happens as well, along with the protection of the supply-managed commodities.

[Keith Currie]

At times, I have to admit, it is like herding cats, because, as I mentioned earlier, we have some 250-plus different commodities in this country. At some point in time, someone's not going to be happy. At the end of the day, we do want balance. We have long stood behind our members at our table who have asked us to support the supply-managed sector, including through Bill C-282, which looks to protect further. At our AGM two weeks ago, we had all five party leaders, including the Prime Minister, stand up and say they are going to support Bill C-282 and support supply management going forward. We will take them at their word, but this legislation will ensure that supply management is protected.

In the same sense, we also want our governments, both today and going forward, to protect all of our commodities to the best of their ability going forward in trade negotiations as well as domestically, because it's just as important to be supported domestically from a food security aspect, an economic aspect and an environmental and societal well-being aspect. We do need the government to protect agriculture to the best of its ability, and that also includes in future trade deals.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses who are here.

I would say that if the British can't export to Canada right now, it's because of Brexit. There was a deal that was signed with CETA, and they chose to exit that particular deal. Now they're having to renegotiate with Canada. I'm confident that we will be able to come to a longer-term agreement, but that's not really Canada's fault. It's other external pressures that were put in place.

Mr. Currie, you talked about an issue that's really important to me, and it's uniting the agriculture sector. I understand and I respect all sectors in agriculture. I come from a supply-managed riding, but I also come from a non supply-managed riding. A lot of dairy producers have cash crops and export grains. Free trade agreements are as important to them as protecting supply management.

Not that I want to give you the task publicly, but because you're newly elected, sitting in that chair, and the CFA did come out in support of Bill C-282, how do you see the vision of making sure that what's good for supply management is good for free trade and that what's good for free trade farmers is also good for supply-managed sectors? How do you show that unity?

[Lisa MacNeil]

Thank you.

I would say that we don't feel that Bill C-282 is necessary. From our perspective, Canadians would lose out if this bill came into play. By that, I mean in importing British creams, specialty creams from the U.K., we're an orphan. We don't really fit into any of the categories within the dairy sector or the dairy categories.

Canadians would lose two things. They'd lose access, because we would be stuck in the supplemental loop from now until forever. We already know that we've been denied access to that, and we're not able to get specialty clotted double creams to our customers in Canada.

More importantly, I would say that Canadians would be losing out on a unique experience. If you've ever had the opportunity to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to your children or your grandchildren, you know there's a chapter in there that talks about having a British tea, an afternoon tea, and they talk about clotted cream. Imagine if you couldn't go to the grocery store and buy some of that cream in those little jars and take it home and actually bring that story to life.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

All right. Thank you very much.

I come from Oshawa, where we build cars. There's a significant amount of money going back and forth, so this piece of legislation is really important for precedent, because I'm worried that if one sector gets something, other sectors may be demanding something, and there's the issue of compensation. I don't know if there's anything in that regard.

Perhaps I could ask Ms. MacNeil something. Given that the minister of trade must table the negotiating objectives to Parliament in advance of trade negotiations, can you comment on why Bill C-282 is necessary?

I'm also wondering if you have any idea.... The government trade officials previously condemned Bill C-216, but it seems that they've flipped and they're changing their mind on Bill C-282. It's pretty much the same piece of legislation. Does that discrepancy warrant further investigation with officials? Maybe we should call them back, because I'm seeing that this is not something that is a really unified position, especially even at the table here.

[Gyslain Loyer]

Actually, there are two reasons.

First, the fact that that promise is included in the bill will reassure our producers and the industry.

It will also signal to other countries that want to negotiate regarding a group of products that there is a small sector that will be untouchable. That's what Bill C‑282 is about.

So I see two benefits to passing this bill.

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

Okay. That's interesting.

My next question is for Mr. Carroll.

You're strongly supporting Bill C-282, and I understand that. However, you wrote an article in Policy Options in which you stated:

And giving a small amount of dairy market share under the Comprehensive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership...and the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement...did not undermine our supply management. We have always shared some of our market with other countries, so now we will have to share a bit more. It's nothing to fear. Canada believes in trade and we're world class players.

That seems to be at odds with what you've come to the committee to say today, which is that we should absolutely never negotiate away any further access to supply-managed industries. Why have you changed your view from when you wrote that?

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

Great. Thank you very much.

As a Simpsons fan, I will say that Ned Flanders would say this is “a dilly of a pickle”, this bill.

Mr. Currie, I think you said in your statement that we shouldn't pit one agricultural sector against another, and you're urging this committee and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-282. We've repeatedly heard from other agricultural sectors, including just today when we heard from Mr. Bekkering, that this is exactly what Bill C-282 does. It pits one agricultural sector against the other, because other agricultural sectors believe that if there is a future trade negotiation in which supply-managed sectors are not included—they're absolutely out—other ag sectors would be affected as a result of getting less access to those markets.

Would you agree with me that Bill C-282 would actually divide the agricultural sector?

[Lisa MacNeil, President, Tree of Life]

Thank you.

Members of the committee, good morning. My name is Lisa MacNeil, president of Tree of Life Canada, and I'm joined by my colleague, Francesco Mastruzzo, our director of brand development.

Today I am here to impress upon the committee that given Bill C-282's negative impact on many small businesses across Canada, such as our customers and ourselves, it should not be supported by parliamentarians.

Tree of Life is one of the largest natural and specialty distributors in Canada. Though we import a broad range of products, we come to you today as the importer of British clotted and double creams. Traditionally served as part of an afternoon tea alongside scones and jams, these specialty creams are sold in tea shops and retail stores across the country. All told, Tree of Life supplies these creams to roughly 2,000 small and medium-sized enterprises throughout Canada.

These products are prepared in a dedicated glass bottling plant in the U.K., using a proprietary production process that yields export-ready creams with a long shelf life and a fat content just below that of butter. It's important to note that these products are not made elsewhere in the U.K. or anywhere in Canada, or in any country with whom Canada has trade agreements. They really are unique.

Despite the fact that there is no similar product produced in Canada, Tree of Life has faced many obstacles while trying to import British specialty creams. Indeed, for years we were nearly denied access to the Canadian market outright, simply because the products do not naturally fit into any of the categories across the cream TRQs.

Over the years, at GAC's request, we undertook good faith efforts to find a domestic supplier that could help us meet the demand of our Canadian customers, and despite our diligent efforts, these attempts have proved fruitless. We found that domestic dairy producers are unwilling to invest in the customized equipment necessary to produce these specialty products, as the domestic market for these products is deemed too small for them to make the required capital investment.

Coombe Castle's investment, made several decades ago, was based on serving the much larger U.K. market, as well as on exporting to foreign markets where this delicacy is sought.

With steady consumer demand but no domestic producer, one would expect that obtaining permission to import the product would be relatively simple. Unfortunately, it has been anything but.

From 2019 to 2021 we were unable to bring in any of these products tariff-free. We've since been able to secure temporary permits, but this method of access provides little room for business planning and growth. We regularly run out of product and have to turn customers away. Canadian SMEs and consumers have to go without the product for absolutely no good policy reason.

The upcoming Canada-U.K. negotiations provide the best opportunity for Tree of Life to secure access to the Canadian market for U.K. specialty cream products. However, the implementation of Bill C-282 could put an end to any such possibility. As Bill C-282 calls for the exclusion of supply-managed sectors from future trade negotiations, including the Canada-U.K. FTA negotiation, importers such as ourselves would be unnecessarily and unfairly affected by this bill, as it would thwart even the possibility of having a tailored Canada-U.K. cream TRQ.

Essentially, in the case of these specialty creams, Bill C-282 would have the perverse effect of protecting a non-existent sector of Canada's dairy industry, all at the expense of very real Canadian enterprises and their customers who depend on Tree of Life's ability to consistently import U.K. specialty cream products at an affordable price.

For these reasons, Tree of Life respectfully urges members of this committee to consider the unintended consequences of this bill and to vote against Bill C-282.

Thank you.

[Cathy Jo Noble]

Thank you.

Bill C-282 is quite simply bad trade policy that profoundly changes Canada's historic approach to trade negotiations. The bill sets a harmful precedent that impacts all sectors but provides limited benefit to the supply-managed sector.

Bill C-282 would share our universal negotiating position before we've even sat at the table. In response, our trading partners will model this and will also take products off the negotiation table at the outset. Canada's upcoming trade policies are with many countries that do not even have a strong interest in our supply-managed products, yet this proposed legislation would give these countries free licence to begin to take products off the trade table before we've even begun.

One of Canada's senior trade negotiators, Aaron Fowler, stated to this committee that he was “not aware of any” of Canada's trading partners that had legislation prohibiting negotiations in the manner that this bill does. I ask why Canada would want to be a global leader on this front. Mr. Fowler also stated to this committee that Canada has “consistently been able to conclude high-quality trade agreements and support” the supply-managed sector. He said he thought there was no reason “we could not continue to do [this] with or without this piece of legislation”.

The reason he said that was that there are safeguards built into the system through required cabinet approval of negotiating text and the federal government publicly stating their commitment to supply management. If this bill passes, there are limited gains to the supply-managed industries but significant losses to the rest of the Canadian sectors. Why are we doing this to ourselves? What will we do when the next Canadian sector puts forward trade protection legislation?

This bill is not a one-off trade policy: It will be incredibly difficult to reverse the momentum and the damage to our global reputation, the damage to our trade opportunities and the impact on food security.

NCFA asks that the committee not support Bill C-282.

Thank you.

[James Bekkering, Board Chair, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. I am James Bekkering, past chair of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I am joined by Cathy Jo Noble, vice-president of NCFA, who is there with you today.

I speak to you today from my farm in Taber, Alberta. I own and operate a cattle feeding operation with my family. We operate four feedlots with a total capacity of 30,000 head. Of the cattle we ship out of our yards, approximately 25% are exported directly to the United States.

By way of background, Canada's beef industry contributes $21.8 billion to the national GDP annually. Each year we export about half the value of Canada's live cattle and beef. The U.S. receives about 75% of those exports. Thus, we have a strong interest in diversifying to other markets through new trade agreements.

I would like to clearly state NCFA's strong opposition to Bill C-282 due to the profound, immediate and negative impacts it will have on Canada's economy if passed into law. I am a cattle feeder, but first and foremost I am a Canadian farmer. I work every day, the same way all Canadian farmers do, to produce high-quality food while providing for my family and contributing to my community. Unfortunately, this bill will not only tie the hands of our trade negotiators; it will also pit Canadian farmer against Canadian farmer, neighbour against neighbour, even though they are part of the same agriculture community.

Over the years, the agriculture sector has worked hard to find solutions that ensure that all succeed, and yet Parliament, by pushing this bill forward, is damaging that sector partnership. There is so much global opportunity for Canadian agriculture—enough for all of us to win—so when I consider government legislating trade negotiations to protect my neighbour down the lane at the expense of my own business, I become frustrated. I implore all MPs to prioritize the long-term economic and trade stability of Canada and not support Bill C-282.

It's over to you, C.J.

[Roger Pelissero, Chair, Egg Farmers of Canada]

Thank you.

Good day, Madam Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

My name is Roger Pelissero. I'm an egg farmer from Ontario and chair of Egg Farmers of Canada. With me today is Emmanuel Destrijker, who is an egg farmer from Quebec and second vice-chair of Egg Farmers of Canada.

Egg Farmers of Canada manages the national egg supply and promotes egg consumption while representing regulated farmers from coast to coast, as we have done since 1972. We had a 50-year celebration at our AGM this year, so it's a fantastic system we have.

There are 1,200 of our family farms. They are in every province and in the Northwest Territories. Together we produce fresh, local, nutritious eggs that Canadians enjoy every single day. In fact, our sector produces over nine billion eggs per year. We support nearly 19,000 jobs and deliver over $1.3 billion to our nation's GDP.

We appreciate the committee's dedication in supporting the federal government as they negotiate trade deals on behalf of all Canadians. These trade agreements are an important part of helping Canada's agriculture sector achieve its full growth potential. However, pursuing these ambitious targets must not be—I can't emphasize it enough—at the expense of food security for Canadians.

This is why we are here to express our support for measures to strengthen Canada's system of supply management and offer stability to a broader agriculture and agri-food sector. Bill C-282 recognizes the unique agriculture landscape we have in Canada, where the combination of our domestic and export-oriented industries brings advantages to Canadians and our entire country.

You see, while export-oriented commodities are subject to the ups and downs of the global market and to volatile world prices, the supply-managed sectors are like a blue chip investment that balances these risks. They are a stabilizing force in our agriculture sector. The balance that is achieved through the combination of our export and domestic-focused commodities is a competitive advantage for Canada.

How is this achieved? At times when world prices plunge, making it difficult for export-oriented farmers to recover their cost of production, supply management farmers continue to receive a steady income. These farmers continue to purchase feed, equipment and other services from their local suppliers, ensuring that rural businesses like our local feed mills, veterinarians and equipment dealers remain in business. They offer steady employment to the community members and directly support local economies while other sectors navigate unpredictable market forces through growing export opportunities. Because of this dynamic, when the global commodity prices return to their normal profitable cycles, export-oriented farmers have a thriving rural infrastructure to tap into.

In our opinion, it's not a question about one sector versus another or judging the merits of one system against the other. That view is both narrow and careless. The opportunity ahead of us is about celebrating the benefits that supply management and non-supply management commodities bring to our system of agriculture and leveraging this platform that delivers growth for everyone.

The second matter I wish to highlight is the vital importance of maintaining small family farms. Through our global engagement, we've seen first-hand the struggles of farmers around the world who cannot recoup their cost of production. This results in family farms disappearing and young or newer farmers no longer seeing a future in farming.

We have to only look to our American neighbours to witness the effects of centralized systems, where becoming bigger is the only way to survive. This model favours industrial farming and drives smaller farms out of business. These farms disappear, as do their local businesses and the people who live and work in these rural regions. This high degree of consolidation has triggered serious issues in the U.S. food supply, with over 47 million layers out of production due to the unprecedented impact of avian influenza, which has erased 18% of production in the U.S.

Our main strength here in Canada is that we have smaller farms and a greater number of farms, with production distributed across the country. With the model we have, we are well positioned to handle supply chain pressures and do not experience the market disruption impact that we've seen in a highly concentrated industry. Last year in Canada, only 1.4 million layers were affected by high path AI, which was 4.6% of our production.

If there is an influenza outbreak again here in Canada in one of the regions, we can move production around. We can increase it in other provinces and keep a supply balance to make up for potential gaps. This allows farmers across Canada to work together to maintain the domestic supply of eggs.

The final item I wish to highlight today is the impact of trade agreements on our sectors.

Excluding supply management sectors from trade agreements is not a barrier that prevents other sectors from conducting trade abroad. However, trade agreements should not be at the expense our domestic sectors.

Market access concessions made under CUSMA, combined with the requirements under the WTO and CPTPP, will have a lasting impact on the livelihood of our farms. Under these agreements, a total of 51.4 million dozen eggs will come into our country from the U.S. and other parts of the world. The combined impact is a total of 7% of our current market production for the entire annual production of eggs each and every year.

That would be removing every egg farm east of Quebec. There would be no egg production in Atlantic Canada at all. Can you imagine those devastating effects and what it would mean to those rural communities? This outcome would result in billions of eggs that Canadian farmers and their children will never be able to produce. It also has an impact on communities across the country that rely on farms for jobs and to support their local businesses and communities.

In closing, we are pleased to hear the government commitment to giving no additional access to our sector in future trade agreements. Going forward, we request that you champion this commitment to protect and defend supply management, as the outcome of recent trade agreements failed to do. By supporting legislation that protects Canada's system of supply management, you are strengthening our vital domestic food supply.

Thank you for the time today and for allowing us to present our views. We look forward to your questions.

[Gyslain Loyer, Vice-Chair, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Gyslain Loyer, and I am a hatching egg farmer from St. Felix de Valois, Quebec. I am also the vice- chair of the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, also known as CHEP for short.

CHEP is a national organization that represents close to 225 supply-managed farmers across Canada. Under supply management, our farmers produce high-quality broiler hatching eggs. These hatching eggs contribute to a steady supply of safe, high-quality, and nutritious chicken for Canadian consumers and the food service industry.

Madam Chair, in the simplest terms, we are the very important first step in the chicken supply chain. I am sure that many of you would be interested to know that hatching egg farmers produce more than 835 million broiler hatching eggs every year. These eggs are worth more than $450 million. The broiler hatching egg sector supports close to 8,000 jobs in Canada. We are proud of the important role we play as sustainable farmers in Canada's domestic food security. If COVID taught us anything, it taught us the benefit of local production. Supply management guarantees domestic food security. We would not have the same level of broiler hatching egg production here in Canada without supply management. That is why it should be no surprise that Canada's hatching egg producers strongly support Bill C‑282.

During a previous meeting, the need for this bill was questioned. Madam Chair, I can assure you that this bill is needed. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister publicly promised that there would be no more market access granted to supply-managed commodities in future trade negotiations. I hope that this promise will be kept.

The farmers I represent all advocate for the opportunity to have another support method to strengthen supply management here in Canada. That opportunity for additional support is before you today in the form of this private members' bill, Bill C‑282.

We are not opposed to Canada entering new trade negotiations with other countries. In recent years, Canada has exported more agri-food products at a higher value than ever, while still maintaining support for supply management. I think it is reasonable for our farmers to expect that any future trade negotiation will not negatively impact our sector or the supply management system in Canada.

The recent trade deals that have been negotiated have permitted access that could result in an estimated loss of $343 million for our farms over the next 20 years. Our sector historically has imported over 21% of products to meet Canadians' needs. That amount has been increased by recent deals and is at a level that can impact our predictability. We do not want any of our fellow supply-managed farmers to be in that situation. There simply is no further space for market access concessions in Canada's sustainable system of supply management, and this proposed bill reflects that fact.

The next time Canadians sit down to enjoy chicken, they should realize that they are benefiting from a stable supply from a Canadian-based supply chain supporting quality jobs because of the strong supply-managed system that we have—which is, I might add, the envy of farmers in many countries. That system should not be used as a bargaining chip during our trade negotiations with other countries.

In conclusion, I would encourage all members of the committee to pass this legislation without amendment through the committee stage, and further support Bill C‑282 until it becomes law.

I am prepared to take any questions you may have.

[Keith Currie, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you heard at the beginning, my name is Keith Currie. I'm the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We represent nearly 190,000 farmers and farm families across this country from coast to coast.

We are, as I mentioned, the largest organization. Because of what we do, we represent nearly $135 billion in GDP annually to the economy of this country.

The agriculture sector is resilient. It is very vital not only to our own national food security system, but also to food security worldwide. In other words, the world needs our products.

Our supply management system has been around since the sixties and promotes resilience and stability in the domestic food chain by matching production with demand, with the support of import controls. It also cuts down on overproduction and waste within the food supply chain and ensures that farmers receive a fair and predictable return for their work. This in turn encourages investments in on-farm efficiencies, helps mitigate the impact of diseases such as avian influenza and promotes environmental sustainability.

Something that gets lost in all this is that it also strengthens rural communities by creating stable jobs across the country, yet this has not precluded Canada from becoming a global leader in the world export of quality agricultural food products to markets around the world. As I am sure this committee is aware, Canada exported nearly $93 billion dollars' worth of agri-food products in 2022, making us the fifth-largest exporter of such products. As such, we continue to support the Canadian government in its efforts to secure additional market access and trade diversification opportunities for Canadian agri-food and seafood products.

CFA has long advocated that no additional access to supply-managed sectors should be given in future trade agreements, and all political parties sitting in the House of Commons have committed to no additional access and no reductions in over-quota tariffs. Despite these commitments, significant concessions have been made in recent trade agreements, including CETA, CPTPP and CUSMA.

While we welcome the market access opportunities these trade agreements provide for Canadian agriculture, these repeated concessions threaten to undermine the resilience and stable food supply that supply management affords. Bill C-282 will require federal officials to respect this commitment during both ongoing and future trade negotiations, thereby protecting supply-managed farmers and the Canadians who rely on their products.

I would highlight that Canada currently maintains 15 free trade agreements with 51 countries around the world, providing market access to nearly 1.5 billion consumers. Outside the three recent examples I cited previously, these agreements were possible without requiring significant additional access to the supply-managed sectors. Rather than taking a divisive approach and focusing on agriculture trade negotiation tactics that pit one agriculture sector against another, we should be focusing on what unites us as a sector—i.e., non-tariff barriers to trade, which are limiting real market access to Canadian products even in areas where Canada has made concessions on access to supply-managed goods.

CETA, for example, is often held up as a model of comprehensive free trade by reducing or eliminating a broad range of tariffs. However, while trade generally has increased since CETA came into force, that's not the case for Canadian agriculture sectors. CAFTA reported in 2019 that “Since the entry into force of the agreement, EU exports to Canada have increased by over 10 per cent, while Canadian agri-food exports have decreased by the same amount”. As a result, Canada provided additional access to supply-managed sectors as a leverage to gain greater foreign market access and provided Canadian tax dollars to compensate supply-managed dairy producers for this increased market access—yet we still have not realized the benefits of increased exports.

The real threat to increased global trade is not Canada's supply management system, but non-tariff barriers to trade that are limiting market access. International trade is critically important to the Canadian economy and Canadian agriculture, and we understand and support the need to pursue new market opportunities for export-oriented producers across Canada. However, Canada's three most recent trade agreements have had a considerable impact on supply-managed farm families and the system that supports them. It's our hope this new legislation will encourage Canada's negotiators to look to other negotiating strategies that do not place one agriculture sector against another, and instead focus our energy on issues that unite us, such as reducing non-tariff trade barriers.

It's our belief that this country needs a strong and united agriculture sector that is composed of both robust supply-managed and export-oriented production, particularly as we strive to meet the global challenges of the day around food security, emissions reduction and environmental protection.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak today, Madam Chair, and I look forward to any questions that members may have.

[Tim Carroll, Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm appearing as an individual.

I'm a former MLA and minister of agriculture in Prince Edward Island. When I was still a graduate student, before I got into politics, I was directly involved with the PEI Marketing Council in the tumultuous early days that marked the formation of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency. After that, as part of my studies, I was hosted by marketing boards in Manitoba, Alberta, and B.C. to study their marketing board systems. Prior to academia, I served as secretary to the board and manager of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers.

I support Bill C-282. I see Canada's supply management programs in the dairy and poultry sectors as uniquely Canadian business practices that have proven themselves several times to be fair trading practices in the international market.

I recall the founding of the national egg and chicken marketing agencies, which was a response to the chicken and egg wars in the early 1970s between Quebec and Ontario. The response by each province threatened to interfere with open borders among Canadian provinces. As we do in this country, in our uniquely Canadian way, we came up with the concept of parallelism to solve the problem and at the same time respect the shared jurisdiction of the federal government and the provinces.

The federal government's unilateral move and recent trade negotiations to open up more of our market to trading partners was, in my view, disrespectful of the organized marketing system put together by producers under provincial legislation. Bill C-282, as I understand it, will restrict federal authorities from giving away further access to our well-served, organized and safe system of providing food.

I would point out that Canada’s supply management system has survived scrutiny under GATT rounds, the World Trade Organization rounds—which is the new name for GATT—and then the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, shortly followed by the North American Free Trade Agreement, the European trade agreement, the TPP; and now the just-concluded USMCA.

What’s the secret to Canada’s brilliance? Could it be that we are tough negotiators? Is it because we are willing to give away anything to preserve supply management? That's nonsense.

Canada’s supply management system has survived close examination over the last 40-plus years of trade negotiations because it has been found to be fair and does not break trade rules, regardless of what the other negotiator may say.

It is seen as not breaking rules because supply management in Canada is not a subsidy program that puts competitors at a disadvantage. Under Canadian law, farmers can stabilize prices legally by getting together and sharing the market. We have always shared a piece of our market with other countries. We are deemed fair because the share of the market is there.

Supply management is a standard business practice. Consider the logic. With any form of supply management, a business is simply trying to limit production of something to closely satisfy the demand in the market. There are great challenges in doing that in agriculture, but each commodity group has designed different systems in different ways of supply and management.

The idea that our trading partner, particularly the United States, doesn't engage in supply management is simply incorrect. Our main trading partners all practise some form of supply management for farm commodities.

I can talk about other examples, but I'm just going to mention one that I was very familiar with when I was with the vegetable board. In this case, the U.S. maintained several food purchasing programs for foreign aid, the military, school lunch programs and food stamp programs.

For example, if I was watching the price of canned peas softening, I could almost predict that within about two weeks or so the USDA would announce a major food purchase of canned peas for school lunches or the military or whatever. The point is that they remove product from the market, and subsequently the price of canned peas rises.

In supply management—

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order.

Thank you all very much. It's a pretty impressive group of people at the end of the table. Thank you for being here.

Welcome to meeting number 53 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. If you are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

With regard to interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, of “floor”, “English” or “French”. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. To members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. To members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding.

Please also note that, during the meeting, it is not permitted to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning technical tests for witnesses, I can inform the committee that all witnesses have completed the required test. Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. We will suspend the meeting in order to ensure translation is done.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management, as we all know it.

We have with us today Tim Carroll, as an individual, by video conference. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we have Keith Currie, president, and Brodie Berrigan, director, government relations and farm policy. From Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, we have Gyslain Loyer, vice-chair; from Egg Farmers of Canada, Roger Pelissero, chair, and Emmanuel Destrijker, second vice-chair; from the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we have Cathy Jo Noble, vice-president, and James Bekkering, board chair, by video conference; and from Tree of Life, we have Lisa MacNeil, president, and Francesco Mastruzzo, director of brand development.

Welcome to all of you on a bright and sunny Monday morning.

Mr. Carroll, I will invite you to give opening remarks of up to five minutes.

[Greg Northey]

The Indo-Pacific is incredibly important for the same reasons Dennis outlined. One of the biggest things for us in that region is to present to all of those potential markets, the developing markets, how to model behaviour around dealing with trade: making sure it's predictable, making sure there are no irritants and making sure it's open and free.

One of the things we absolutely need, as we move into those markets, is to ensure that what we're modelling in Bill C-282, particularly around how to protect a sector through legislation, will not be damaging for us as we try to achieve our objectives in that region. If we're taking things off the table, and it doesn't matter what sector it is or what protection of the sector we're doing, it means we will never be able to have commercially viable deals with any country. In fact, we won't be able to speak to countries around their regulatory system about anything, because they will simply say to us, “Well, you're protecting a sector. We're going to do it, but we're going to do it in a different way with a non-tariff trade barrier or some kind of SPS issue.”

We won't have the standing, as Canada, if we're demonstrating a behaviour where we're legislation a protection for a sector, a region or any kind of issue that we deem should be protected.

[Daniel Turp]

Of course. You should know that. You are all parliamentarians, after all.

Bill C‑282 carries weight. It would prevent Canadian negotiators from being able to make concessions. The bill very formally sets out a commitment restricting the prerogative of the government and the minister.

I'd like to say something, if I may. When I hear people describe the supply management system as outdated or protectionist, it brings to mind a question. Instead, why not suggest that other countries adopt the system?

The system has proven its worth. What's more, it contributes to food sovereignty. Some U.S. states—Wisconsin, for instance—are now looking at the system. They think it may be the way to protect farmers and ensure food sovereignty.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Vice-Chair.

Just to put it on the record, on December 8, 2022, Conservatives voted against Bill C-32, which certified the $1.7 billion for supply management. Furthermore, the leader of the official opposition did not commit his full support of Bill C-282.

I'd like to ask my first question of Mr. Slomp.

In your policy briefing on the previous verison of the bill, the National Farmers Union stated that passing the bill was in the national interest. Do you believe that this bill, Bill C-282, will impact the competitiveness of the Canadian agriculture sector on the global market?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If I can just build on the second comment, which I just want to follow up on, Mr. Lampron, you talked about how the legislation would lead to greater stability and predictability. I fear that, if we legislate this, if we codify it, it may lead to the opposite result.

For example, building on what my colleague said in the last meeting, look at dairy production in Canada. We went from 75 million hectolitres in 2000 to 94 million hectolitres in 2021. Today I just pulled off the exports of dairy products by country of destination and, to the United States, the value of our dairy exports went from $189 million in 2019 to $241 million. It went up by $52 million.

I would imagine that those exports were negotiated—weren't they? That market access was gained through a trade negotiation—wasn't it? If we codify through Bill C-282, what would stop the Americans from renegotiating our trade agreement and saying, “Forget it. Trade dairy exports into Canada are not permitted”.

Do you not feel that's a risk to the sector, a risk we want to try to avoid?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

This is kind of interesting. I'll just build on what I indicated at our last meeting in the interest of disclosure. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, I worked as a lobbyist for a consulting firm in Ontario. One of my clients was Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I'm pleased to have worked for them and the school milk program throughout Ontario. I think all of us recognize the importance of supply management to our farm organizations and our farm families.

I want to follow up on two comments.

Mr. Darling, you indicated in your comments the fear of the possibility of a protectionist response, in that if Bill C-282 were implemented, it would encourage, for example, our largest trading partner, the United States, to adopt similar legislation. What would be the impact on our farm sector if that were to occur in certain sectors such as, for example, the beef sector?

Mr. Phinney, you can follow up as well.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

I want to talk about this because I think it's important. I wholeheartedly support Bill C‑282, and I'd like to thank the members on the other side for their support. We work together closely on this issue.

Other falsehoods were going around during the pandemic. One of them was that we could use a tube to get cows to stop producing milk, and then all of a sudden, supply management was blamed for it all.

Again, a professor whom I won't name blamed supply management, and people knew this was going on in the states. The market changed. Consider this. Last year on December 24, my region was hit by a big storm. When drivers can't get to the farm to pick up the milk, producers have to dump it. That has nothing to do with supply management.

I would just like to hear your opinion on that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

If Bill C-282 passes, would industries such as yours seek economic compensation for the missed market access opportunities that the bill could create? Is that something you guys have pondered?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Darling and Mr. Phinney, I come from Oshawa. We do cars. Our supply chain is important. It's very sensitive and very accurate. We just want to make sure we get trade deals that are the best we can get for all Canadian interests.

The government committed to not giving up any more concessions to supply management. That's something that all parties agreed on. In the last iteration of this bill, which was Bill C‑216, trade negotiators pointed to the risk of losing future trade opportunities for Canada in the sectors that depend on trade.

Based on that type of consideration, would you say Bill C-282 poses more risks or benefits to the Canadian economy? Could our trade partners retaliate by adopting similar legislation? What would you say the risk is?

Mr. Darling, could you start?

[Daniel Turp]

No.

In fact, I think that Parliament, and you, parliamentarians, should demand more power in your dealings with the government when it comes to negotiations, to transparency in negotiations.

Before agreements are signed, before they are ratified, Parliament should approve them. It should also be continuously updated on the negotiations.

The benefit of the proposal in Bill C‑282, in restricting the prerogative and powers of the minister to negotiate on supply management issues, is to ensure that there will be no negotiations on these issues and that there will be no concessions.

That is strong and sustainable, unless a new government wants to change that provision later. In my view, this is a very definitive way of ensuring the objective is met. I will say, as I did at the beginning of my remarks, that in this particular case of supply management, it comes down to keeping a promise.

I hear some parliamentarians saying the opposite of what their leader said today. All leaders of all parties have said they would protect the supply management system.

I think that parliamentarians and the parties should respect their respective leaders and honour their word; they should agree to pass this bill because it would ensure this system is upheld.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may be vice-chair, but today you're the chair.

I would like to say hello to all of my colleagues.

I thank all the witnesses for their evidence today.

Mr. Turp, you are an expert in international law, I believe. You have taught, you have been a professor, and you have supervised many master's theses and doctoral dissertations on these issues.

In your previous career as a member of Parliament, you worked on the making of trade deals and accountability to Parliament.

We've heard all kinds of arguments today, both for and against Bill C‑282. Among the concerns that have been raised, we are told that it could undermine the way negotiations are concluded.

As an expert on the subject, do you share that concern?

[Daniel Gobeil, President, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Daniel Gobeil, president of the Producteurs de lait du Québec and a dairy farmer in La Baie, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

It is clear to me and to the 4,500 dairy producers in Quebec, spread over 14 beautiful regions, that the adoption of Bill C‑282 is essential to the survival and predictability of dairy farms in Quebec and in Canada.

My predecessors talked about concessions. They mentioned these various agreements: the CETA, the CPTPP and the CUSMA. These agreements include concessions that have resulted in a market loss of 8.4%. In addition to this figure, there are tariff quotas already imposed by the World Trade Organization, the WTO. Today, 18% of the Canadian market is occupied by products supplied by other countries.

The supply management model dates back to 1971. It is not a business model, it is an agricultural policy that Canada has maintained over the years. All countries have agricultural policies and more fragile sectors, which they want to protect when they sit at the negotiating table. The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP, is one example. The large subsidies associated with the U.S. Farm Bill are another.

During negotiations, each sector works to protect certain policies. In our case, however, it is always the same thing at every negotiation: the dairy sector is sacrificed at the last minute. It is very important to protect the supply management sector, i.e., milk, eggs and poultry produced throughout Canada. Supply management ensures profitability and balance on the farm, while meeting Canadian demand.

This model allows Canadian producers to offer a quality product that fills grocery store shelves. We have seen this in recent events following the pandemic and supply chain breakdowns. It is very important that our food and our health are supported by quality local products. It is important to protect those sectors that want to provide those products to Canadians.

By protecting the supply management system, Canada has, over the years, been able to negotiate trade agreements with many countries. In terms of trade, we have access to over two thirds of the world's population. It is not the supply management sector that has been detrimental to these agreements.

We hear comments from some players. We sincerely believe that it is possible to protect interesting market sectors and production methods such as supply management in Canada, while developing export markets for certain products for which there is a global demand. As we have proven in previous agreements, in Canada, we are able to do this.

We are really counting on the support of all political parties for Bill C‑282. That is what we have seen. The last few weeks have shown us that there is real support from all four major parties, and especially from their leaders, to protect jobs across Canada.

I thank you for listening and for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. I am available to answer your questions.

[Pierre Lampron]

Dairy farmers recognize that some sectors are highly dependent on the export market, but Canadian trade policy must also ensure that the needs of all sectors are balanced.

A truly Canadian model must ensure the success and long-term viability of all sectors, without pitting some sectors against others.

The compensation for dairy farmers and the investments in dairy processing announced in the 2022 fall economic statement will help our sector make the transition that will be required as these agreements are implemented.

Granting repeated market access concessions, followed each time by compensation, is not a model that will support the long-term success of our industry, nor would it work in any other sector of the Canadian economy.

Canada's dairy, poultry and egg producers have paid their dues.

Bill C‑282 would protect the sustainability and viability of Canadian farms under supply management by preventing the granting of further market access concessions under current or future trade agreements.

Parliamentarians sent a very strong signal in the second reading vote. They can send an even stronger message by quickly passing the bill and putting dairy protection into law.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[David Wiens, Vice-President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Thank you.

I'd like to point out that Bill C-282 comes at an inflection point for the country. Since the pandemic, Canadians have come to understand in very concrete terms what it means to be vulnerable to unreliable foreign suppliers. Canada's unique system of supply management was designed to put the needs of Canadians first. It ensures that Canadian families have secure and stable access to dairy, eggs and poultry products. For dairy farmers, it also means producing nutritious, sustainably produced, high-quality milk under some of the world's most stringent standards and practices for food safety and animal care.

This unique Canadian framework is weakened any time that dairy, poultry and egg market access concessions are negotiated and granted as part of international trade agreements. This results in replacing Canadian-made products with imported products on our store shelves. It significantly impacts our producers' ability to plan and make needed investments for the future of their farms, such as for our commitment to reaching net-zero emissions on Canadian dairy farms by 2050.

[Pierre Lampron, President, Dairy Farmers of Canada]

Mr. Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for the invitation to address the committee today.

My name is Pierre Lampron. In addition to being a dairy farmer myself, I am the president of Dairy Farmers of Canada.

Joining me for this presentation is our vice-president, Mr. David Wiens. We welcome this opportunity to express the strong support of Canada's 10,000 dairy farmers for Bill C‑282.

If passed, this legislation will ensure that supply management will no longer be on the table in current or future trade negotiations, thereby strengthening the Canadian dairy sector. It will give us greater predictability and stability to invest and plan for the future. It will also allow us to continue to play the vital role we need to play for the benefit of Canadian families.

The past few years have been challenging for all Canadians. In addition to a global pandemic and the resulting high inflation, there was the war in Ukraine and unreliable global supply chains because they were weakened.

Dairy farmers have also faced these significant challenges and have done their utmost to adapt. However, we have also faced an additional challenge: the impact of market access concessions granted under three successive trade agreements: the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

Dairy farmers in Canada estimate that the combined market access afforded by these agreements equates to an average annual loss of revenue of $450 million for dairy farmers.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Wiens.

[Nathan Phinney, President, Canadian Cattle Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Phinney. I'm a beef farmer from New Brunswick and president of the Canadian Cattle Association. With me today is Dennis Laycraft, executive vice-president of CCA.

We appreciate the opportunity from the committee to provide input on Bill C-282 from the perspective of the Canadian beef industry. Specifically, we will address our concerns regarding the detrimental and unprecedented nature the bill presents for future trade negotiations.

CCA represents nearly 60,000 beef producers from coast to coast. The beef industry is a significant driver of our economy, as Canada's second-largest single source of farm income, contributing $21.8 billion to our country's gross domestic product and supporting nearly 350,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

We, Canadian beef producers, pride ourselves on creating a high-quality, nutritious and sustainable protein that is less than half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions intensity per pound of beef. Simply put, we are producing food, benefiting the economy and at the same time protecting and conserving environments across Canada.

Free and open trade is key to the beef industry's success in Canada, with 50% of Canadian beef being exported around the globe. In being in an export industry, CCA has always emphasized the need for strong trade rules and principles in facilitating global trade.

Today we will outline some important considerations both specific to Canada's beef producers and the broad interests of the Canadian economy. We encourage the committee and all parliamentarians to consider these comments before moving forward with this bill unamended.

Increased market access has been essential to our sustainability as an industry. Beef producers earn approximately an additional $1,500 per animal because of our ability to sell on international markets. For our industry to continue to grow and diversify our exports, we will need the improved market access that comes through trade negotiations.

Closing future market opportunities is closing our economic growth as an industry. Allow us to demonstrate how impactful trade negotiations have become for economic success in an export-driven sector.

First, since the start of the CPTPP in 2017 and the removal of tariffs that followed, Canada's beef exports increased 192% to Japan. In 2022 we exported $500 million to Japan in beef and beef products. Additionally, when NAFTA was adopted, the Canadian beef industry saw an increase in value of exports of 650% from 1994-2022. Without these high-value agreements, we would not be exporting $6 billion a year.

If Bill C-282 moves forward, Canada will be at a disadvantage before negotiations even begin. Bill C-282 will tie the hands of our trade negotiators and severely constrain the Government of Canada's ability to negotiate and renegotiate the best deals for all of Canada. We understand, from previous trade officials' testimony under the bill's previous iteration as Bill C-216, that their ability to negotiate would be limited and that our trading partners would also limit their offers to Canada.

Canada's most beneficial and progressive trade deals, like CPTPP and CUSMA, have been achieved through flexibility and compromise. Our negotiators have balanced the need for ambitious outcomes while protecting Canada's interests. Bill C-282 takes away this needed flexibility to secure ambitious trade deals. In an already tense trading environment with protectionism on the rise, it is counterintuitive for Canada to add more barriers to trade. Bill C-282 sets a dangerous precedent that certain industries and sectors would have their trade interests protected through legislation. Further, this bill could see a domino effect around the globe for further protectionist actions from our trading partners. This risk is not worth the economic impact to Canada's economic sector, which relies on trade, and the broader interests of Canadians.

Market access losses will be counterproductive to Canada's wider economic interests. While many other countries have trade-sensitive sectors, we understand that no other country has chosen to legislate the work of trade negotiators. Bill C-282 is unprecedented in terms of global trade principles. Trade is essential for Canada and the world's food security. Closing ourselves to future trade is closing access to food for Canadians and the countries that depend on food exports.

Open and free trade allows access to food at lower costs. Canadian cattle producers provide some of the most sustainable beef to the world at a time when we're globally discussing climate change, sustainability and food security. The world needs more beef from Canada, not less.

To conclude, I want to emphasize that the growth of the Canadian beef industry will depend on international trade. Hindering trade is hindering our ability, as an industry, to grow. We strongly encourage members of Parliament to oppose Bill C-282 as currently written in order to allow Canada to preserve its robust ability to negotiate comprehensive trade agreements that help secure Canada's long-term economic success with the national interests of Canadian consumers in mind.

CCA appreciates the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-282 and would be pleased to provide any further information that the committee may seek.

Thank you.

[Dan Darling, President, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Dan Darling, and I am the president of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance. I'm also a beef producer and grain farmer here in Ontario.

CAFTA is the voice of Canadian agri-food exporters, advocating for a more open and fair international trading environment for agriculture and agri-food. Today, I am here to convey to parliamentarians in the strongest terms possible that Bill C-282 should not be supported, given its negative consequences for the Canadian economy and our hard-won reputation as one of the great trading nations of the world.

This position is grounded in decades of Canada's experience in leading the way in negotiating various trade agreements whether multilaterally, regionally or bilaterally. We represent 90% of farmers who depend on trade as well as producers, food processors and agri-food exporters who want to grow the economy through better access to foreign markets.

Our members include producers of beef, pork, grain, cereals, oilseeds, pulses, soybeans and canola as well as the sugar and processed-food industries. Collectively we account for over 90% of Canada's agri-food exports and support about one million jobs in urban and rural communities across Canada. A significant portion of these sales and jobs would not exist without competitive access to the world market.

Free and open trade is essential to our prosperity. Canada is a trade-dependent country. International trade accounts for nearly two-thirds of our national economy and supports more than one out of every six jobs.

Bill C-282 threatens Canada's ability to secure and negotiate the best trade agreements to support our long-term economic success. The committee has been told that Bill C-282 will not affect Canada's major trade deals because they are essentially all complete. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are negotiating a massive deal with the United Kingdom, our largest trading partner in Europe right now. Agricultural negotiations at the WTO remain ongoing, and provisions to CUSMA state explicitly that it can be reopened and renegotiated at a moment's notice.

My point is that this is no time to be making it more difficult for our negotiators to do their jobs. Flexibility and balance are key components to successful trade negotiations, and this bill takes away these critical ingredients.

Canada has successfully concluded many of its most beneficial and meaningful trade negotiations, including CETA, CPTPP and CUSMA, through compromise and flexibility. Simply put, these trade negotiations would not have happened if Canada was not prepared to discuss everything at the table with a broader national economic interest in mind. This legislation weakens our negotiation position from the outset and increases the leverage of other trading nations against Canada by making it impossible for partners to even contemplate a win, big or small, in these sectors.

Bill C-282 reduces our opportunity to participate and gain market access in various bilateral and multilateral negotiations. Ultimately, this bill will put us on a collision course with the United States and other major trading partners, especially when it's time to renew, extend or modernize existing trade agreements. Trade disruptions would be catastrophic for Canada. The food manufacturing sector is bigger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined.

Further Bill C-282 sets a new dangerous precedent, inviting our trading partners to adopt similar legislation and closing market opportunities for everyone involved. Canada has worked tirelessly to promote open and rules-based trade for agri-food and bilateral discussions, as well as through the Ottawa Group and international organizations such as the G7, G20, the WTO and the forum for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. This legislation directly contradicts Canada's leadership at international fora like the WTO, where Canada opposes protectionism and supports rules-based trade systems.

A key part of Canada's economic growth will be trade diversification into other regions of the world where we don't have major trade agreements, such the Indo-Pacific and Africa. While the government's Indo-Pacific strategy is a step forward in trade diversification, Bill C-282 is a step backwards.

To summarize, Bill C-282 threatens existing and future trade deals, erodes stability and predictability in trade, and jeopardizes the very foundation of Canada's economic growth: free and open trade.

Make no mistake. Agriculture will not be the only industry affected by this bill. Key sectors such as energy, manufacturing—

[Daniel Turp, Emeritus Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to your fellow parliamentarians and to the clerk of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I would like to express my pleasure at being back in the House of Commons, virtually. Like you, I have had the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons, as I was the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry during the 36th Parliament, from 1997 to 2000. Today, I am responding to your invitation to appear before you to present my comments on Bill C‑282.

It is a very simple bill. As you've seen, there's a section that would add subsection 2.1 to section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This subsection would essentially ensure that the Minister of Foreign Affairs could no longer engage in negotiations on Canada's supply management system or challenge it through negotiations.

I will make three points. A few hours ago, I submitted a written document to the clerk of the committee. I hope that you will be able to read this document.

My first comment concerns the advisability of improving the act by passing Bill C‑282. In this regard, you will note that I have mentioned in my paper and in my notes the existence of a broad consensus on the need to protect supply management. This consensus is reflected in unanimous House of Commons motions, including the one of November 22, 2005, which was adopted almost 20 years ago in the context of negotiations at the World Trade Organization. In 2018, there were similar motions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

There are also statements from the Minister of Agriculture and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who reminded us that Canada's supply-managed sectors are pillars of rural areas. He added that his government had made a public commitment not to make further concessions in future trade agreements. The Conservatives, through their current leader, have also said that they support supply management. The New Democratic Party also did so in the discussions surrounding Bill C‑216, which preceded Bill C‑282, but was the same in content. The only party that is opposed to protecting the supply management system is the People's Party of Canada, and it has no members in the House of Commons.

So I say, very humbly, that there is a very broad consensus on this issue. Given that broad consensus, I believe that Bill C‑282 should pass and that Parliament should tell the government that it can no longer question the supply management system during negotiations.

This would also send a clear message to trading partners that they can no longer expect the government to make concessions on this system, and it would protect a number of farmers who are calling for the protection of this system and its continuation.

With respect to the legality of the bill, as I mentioned in my written notes, I agree with my colleague from Laval University, Patrick Taillon, who presented his views to this committee when Bill C‑216 was reviewed. I understand that you have a brief from him in which he comments on this issue. He says very clearly that this amendment to the act would be legal and would not pose a constitutional problem. In effect, a law could change the royal prerogative and limit the powers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs when negotiating international trade treaties that could allow concessions where there should not be any.

I will close, Mr. Chair, by suggesting that Parliament should play a much greater role when it comes to international treaties.

It should be given the ability to limit the powers of the minister, as the member who introduced this bill would like. Parliament should be able to approve international trade treaties, because they are important.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kyle Seeback]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. If you are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of their screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Members in the room who wish to speak can raise their hand. Members on Zoom can use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Please also note that, during the meeting, it is not permitted to take pictures in the room or screenshots on Zoom.

In accordance with the committee’s routine motion concerning technical tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required tests.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, regarding supply management.

We have a number of witnesses with us today: Daniel Turp, emeritus professor, Université de Montréal, as an individual; Dan Darling, president, and Greg Northey, vice-president, Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance; Nathan Phinney, president, and Dennis Laycraft, executive vice-president, Canadian Cattle Association; Pierre Lampron, president, and David Wiens, vice-president, Dairy Farmers of Canada; Daniel Gobeil, president, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec, by video conference; and Jan Slomp, National Farmers Union, by video conference.

Welcome, all. We're going to start with opening remarks, and then proceed with the first round of questions.

Mr. Turp, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

That will be followed by Mr. Darling, Mr. Phinney, Mr. Lampron, Mr. Wiens, Mr. Gobeil and Mr. Slomp, all for five minutes. If you can't keep track of that, I'm happy to reorient you as to who is speaking next.

Mr. Turp, I invite you to go forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to our witnesses. It was a fascinating afternoon, as a few other points were also raised. Thank you, and until the next time.

A witness list for Bill C-282 must be submitted by Tuesday, February 21 if you have any additional witnesses. On March 6, we're going to deal with draft reports on the ArriveCAN study and the Inflation Reduction Act. Please ensure any further witnesses for Bill C-282 are submitted.

Thank you all very much. The meeting is adjourned.

[Aaron Fowler]

No, it is not our belief that it would. The access to the Canadian market that has been provided to Ukraine is a unilateral action taken by the Government of Canada. It is not a treaty obligation, therefore I do not believe it would be covered by Bill C-282.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Would Bill C-282 have prevented the government from including supply management in the Ukraine goods remission order?

[Aaron Fowler]

I believe Bill C-282 would render into law what has been government policy for some time. It would remove any question as to whether Canadian negotiators have flexibility beyond what they're expressing at the table.

Whether that will make it easier for Canadian negotiators to conclude FTAs in the future is a different question, and I choose not to speculate on that at this time.

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

Thank you very much.

Do you think the passage of Bill C‑282 would strengthen Canada's position in future negotiations in order to avoid new breaches in supply management?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

There will be a negative impact.

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade, says it strongly oppose Bill C-282. It stated, “This legislation creates a dangerous precedent and diminishes Canada as a free trade partner.”

Do you agree with this statement?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. Right now, I think everybody is aware that we have a bit of a dispute with the United States. I think it was on December 20, 2021, that a dispute settlement panel determined that Canada contravened CUSMA's obligations but we could retain the supply management system.

On January 31, 2023, a week ago, the United States again requested establishment of a dispute settlement panel relating to Canada's dairy policies. I was wondering, if we enacted this bill, Bill C-282, would it affect the Canada-U.S. trade relationship concerning dairy products? If so, how? What is the probability that, following enactment, the United States would seek to renegotiate certain CUSMA provisions? What are your thoughts on that?

[Tom Rosser, Assistant Deputy Minister, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade on its review of Bill C‑282.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC for short, works closely with and supports Global Affairs Canada in advancing Canada’s free trade agenda, playing an important role in trade negotiations, particularly in areas related to market access for agricultural goods.

As said by my counterpart Mr. Fowler, the Government of Canada has had a long-standing policy to defend the integrity of Canada’s supply management system for dairy products, poultry and eggs. This includes clear commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. The bill is consistent with this policy.

Canada’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg farmers are part of the backbone of rural communities across the country, generating almost $13 billion in farm-gate sales in 2021, and creating over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities across Canada.

With respect to the market access provided to Canada’s trade partners, it has only been provided in exceptional cases in regard to landmark trade agreements, such as the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, or WTO, CETA, the CPTPP and CUSMA. While not taken lightly, these trade agreements are overwhelmingly in the interest of Canada and to the overall benefit of Canada’s agricultural sector.

Furthermore, in the case of CUSMA it's important to remember that the original negotiating position in the United States was the full elimination of the supply management system. The outcome in CUSMA, while difficult and challenging, allows the supply management system to continue functioning with respect to its three pillars.

The Government of Canada is also fully and fairly compensating producers and processors with supply-managed commodities who have lost market share under the three agreements. As announced this past November, dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors are expected to share more than $1.7 billion in direct payments and investment programs in response to the impacts related to CUSMA. This is in addition to the over $3 billion in direct payments in investment programs for CETA and CPTPP. These programs will help drive innovation and growth in the supply-managed sectors.

In conclusion, the integrity of the supply management system has been successfully defended during multiple trade negotiations. The Government of Canada is working hard to ensure that the supply management system remains strong and that producers and processors operating in the system remain productive and sustainable.

Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations, and as such is fully consistent with existing policy.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. Along with my colleagues, of course, I'd be happy to answer any questions that committee members may have.

[Aaron Fowler, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Madam Chair and honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade on its review of Bill C-282.

The bill proposes to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, such that the Government of Canada cannot make any commitment in an international trade treaty that would have the effect of increasing tariff rate quota volumes or reducing over-quota tariff rates for dairy products, poultry or eggs.

The intent of the bill is consistent with the long-standing Government of Canada policy to defend the integrity of Canada’s supply management system. In practice, this policy has allowed Canada to successfully conclude 15 ambitious free trade agreements covering 51 countries while preserving Canada’s supply management system, including its three pillars of production control, pricing mechanisms and import controls.

New market access for supply-managed products has been provided only at the WTO and in three free trade agreements, which are the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

The decision to provide increased market access for supply-managed goods in the context of these negotiations was not taken lightly. Such commitments were accepted only where it was deemed necessary to conclude free trade agreements that were in Canada’s overall economic interests. For instance, these agreements allowed Canada to maintain its preferential access to the United States market and to secure significant new access to the EU, Japan and other important foreign markets. It is important to highlight that while new access for supply-managed products was provided through these agreements, the integrity of the supply management system itself, including its three pillars, was fully maintained.

In recent years, the government has made clear its commitment to make no further market access concessions for supply-managed products in future trade negotiations. In line with this publicly stated commitment, Canada’s most recently concluded trade agreement, the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, did not provide new market access for cheese or any other supply-managed product, even though this was an important issue for the United Kingdom in the negotiations.

In conclusion, Bill C-282 proposes to make the government’s commitment to make no further market access commitments for supply-managed products into a legal requirement by amending the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. This would strengthen the policy of defending the integrity of Canada’s supply management system by enshrining it into law.

Along with my colleagues here today, I welcome the committee's questions. Thank you.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, if we were to pass the bill fairly quickly, it could strengthen the position of our negotiators at the table. Given the fact that when the UK was in the EU they were given shares, I think they should be negotiating some of what was already conceded.

The quick passage of Bill C‑282 could give us an interesting lever. That's how it could be done.

Mr. Roche, would you like to add anything?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Absolutely.

I am introducing Bill C‑282 precisely because, in the past, our representatives, after mouthing allegiance to supply management with their hands on their hearts, decided to sacrifice it.

This time, we're asking you if you want to hold on to this system. We are going to do what every other country is doing, we are going to take it off the table. That's all.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I apologize. The witness talks about people who are providing food. I am also talking about people who are providing food: Pulse Canada, the Canola Council of Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Cattle Association. They are saying they're strongly opposed to Bill C-282. They not only provide food to Canadians; they provide food to people across the world, which is how they made Canada number five worldwide in terms of these exports. That is what I'm talking about.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Sorry, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the witness again: 90% of the farms and agri-food businesses that are represented by the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance say they strongly oppose Bill C-282. When I was listening to the witness's comment, Madam Chair, I heard the fluctuations and how, when it fluctuates downwards, small producers will get decimated.

The same thing applies to every single industrial and business sector, so every single sector can demand a clause like this, barring the government from negotiating anything to do with their sector when it goes in for new free trade agreement negotiations. It means that Canadian international trade has to collapse. Is that not the case?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which represents 90% of Canadian farmers, producers, food manufacturers and agri-food businesses that depend on trade strongly opposes Bill C-282. What do you say to its members?

[Marc-André Roche]

Bill C‑282 does not question the concessions already made in the agreements. We are not changing anything at all.

Of course, the bill would limit Canada's ability to negotiate a new agreement under the WTO, if that agreement were to make new concessions.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's at the negotiating table that problems occur. That's where decisions are made to sacrifice market share. However, Bill C‑282 seeks to legislate what happens before treaties are signed. That's why it's important.

In fact, if a government, be it Liberal or Conservative, decides to support supply management, the bill would prevent that government from negotiating the three protected sectors once at the table. It would be non-negotiable under the bill, as is the case for other products in other countries. The government would then have a mandate to not put it on the table, but also the ability to say, “It's my Parliament; let's move on to another issue.”

If there were ever any intent, be it malicious or perverse, to not respect the legislative authority, this bill would force the government to go back and table new legislation in the midst of negotiations. That would be somewhat futile. It would bear the blame for that decision.

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

Good day.

Thank you for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Thériault, but Mr. Roche is always welcome to respond if he wants to comment too.

I feel like I'm watching the same movie I saw two years ago, where a part of the House of Commons, under pressure, will vote in favour, but is doing everything it can to tell us that Bill C‑282 is ultimately a bad bill.

In fact, I also heard that the breaches were a good thing. Ever since, the dairy sector has apparently never worked better. I suppose I should feel reassured now.

Mr. Thériault, could you explain the intention of your bill to the committee?

Is it true that the two governments we've had over the past 15 years openly support supply management?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We went to agricultural fairs. We haven't travelled across Canada, if that's what you mean.

With respect to supply-managed farmers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, support Bill C‑282. So there are many groups that support the bill. There is a fairly broad consensus. I should have brought a list of all their names, which I had at the press conference the other day. I don't know if you saw the press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. A lot of people and producers came to support the bill.

I would argue that the bill has a very broad consensus among supply-managed producers across the country.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is with great pride that I rise today to introduce Bill C‑282.

This bill is really pretty straightforward. It adds to the Minister of Foreign Affairs' mandate the obligation to fully respect supply management by taking away the minister's ability to negotiate these principles in future international trade negotiations.

The minister, therefore, won't be able to sign a treaty that would increase tariff rate quotas, which we commonly refer to as quotas, for supply-managed products, or reduce the tariff applicable to those goods when they're imported in excess of the expected quota.

Bill C‑282 is not a partisan bill.

In principle, in the House, we always agree on the need to protect supply management and not weaken it. In every trade negotiation, the House unanimously called on the government not to weaken supply management.

It did so in 2005 in the context of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, the WTO. It did so in 2017, in the context of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. It did so in 2018, this time for the trans-Pacific partnership. Each time, MPs were unanimous, including members of the government, no matter the party in power.

Things inevitably go sideways, however. Whether in the context of the TPP, CUSMA or the agreement with Europe, the government eventually gave up market share.

What we're proposing to you today is to move from consensus on the principle to action. That's why we decided to introduce legislation. There was the one introduced by my colleague Louis Plamondon, Bill C‑216. Today, we're debating Bill C‑282.

Even though the Bloc Québécois introduced the bill, it isn't just ours. Supply-managed producers in Quebec and across Canada have adopted it as their own. I know they're listening and I want to salute them. This bill is theirs as much as ours.

I'm pleased by the House's overwhelming support for Bill C‑282, especially that of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has committed to supporting it at all stages.

In practical terms, what effect will Bill C‑282 have?

Signing a treaty is the government's first commitment in negotiations. By signing a treaty, it indicates that it approves of the text and commits to ensuring its implementation. I want to emphasize the word “commitment” within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

By preventing the government from signing, Bill C‑282 prevents it from introducing an implementation bill that would pave the way for the ratification and implementation of the treaty.

Bill C‑282 proposes that supply management be removed from the bargaining table. Unless the government comes back to Parliament mid-negotiations and asks it to change the law, supply management is fully protected. This legislation is a powerful tool to increase Canada's balance of power in trade negotiations.

The overwhelming support of the House gives me hope that Bill C‑282 will quickly become a bill, unlike the previous one, which died on the Order Paper in 2021.

Bill C‑282 doesn't disarm the government. On the contrary, it strengthens it. Let's not forget that every country in the world protects its sensitive commodities. Just look at cotton and sugar in the United States. Supply management is at the heart of our agricultural model. It is very important for producers.

Human-scale family farms dot the landscape and structure our regions' land use and economic and social development. Producers feed the people, earn a living from their labour and contribute to our food security. These people deserve stability and predictability. They need to be able to plan for the future instead of facing uncertainty every time an agreement is renegotiated at their expense.

The big American dairy producers could fully supply the Canadian market with their surplus alone. The largest American egg producer alone could feed the Canadian market. That goes to show just what a precarious situation our supply-managed farmers are in. That's why they count on you so much.

Supply management is a system whose balance rests on three pillars. We have to control production, price and what crosses the border. As my colleague Yves Perron would say, it's like a three-legged stool. If the third leg gets shorter with every breach, then the whole thing is liable to collapse.

I'm prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 50 of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Today's meeting will take place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. A reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding. Please also note that during the meeting, it is not permitted to take pictures in the room, or screenshots on Zoom.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me, and we will suspend for a few minutes in order that all members can fully participate.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is beginning its study of Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

In our first panel, I'd like to welcome the sponsor of Bill C-282, Mr. Luc Thériault. Mr. Thériault is accompanied by Mr. Marc-André Roche, researcher for the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Thériault, the floor is yours, please, and you have five minutes.

[Martin Caron]

First, I have to say that we're pleased to see support for Bill C‑282, which deals with supply management.

This is certainly something that lets us adjust prices very quickly. What we're saying today is we want a fair price. That allows for predictability, research and innovation, while also meeting Canadians' expectations. People talked about animal welfare and the environment, among other things. Farming operations need predictability. As we know, when we invest in agriculture, it's for the long term, and the supply management system makes that possible. The producers benefit, but so do all Canadians. Whether we're talking about processors or suppliers, the whole chain benefits.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm going to say something totally non-partisan: I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for introducing Bill C‑282. Actually, the minister, the entire cabinet, the vast majority of my party members and I supported it.

As we know, the dairy sector is often criticized for being under supply management. However, as we've seen inflation shoot up, the price of milk has remained fairly stable, at least on the farm. I can't speak to the cost of processing or the retail price, but at the farm level, the price has remained quite stable.

Do you have any comments about this?

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

We are talking about Bill C-282, which deals with supply management, correct?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Dancella Boyi]

As per what Mr. Seeback just suggested, if the members are looking to resume the meetings on Bill C-282 around March 5 or March 8, it would be best, if possible, to submit lists by February 24.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Concerning the business that we have before us, on Monday we have a continuation of this mining study that's coming on the 13th.

On the 16th it was the BDC and the minister, but the minister is travelling, and BDC is not available either, so I'm suggesting, in discussions with the official opposition, that on the PMB that was referred to us yesterday, we start that on the 16th. I understand that it is of real interest to a lot of people, so to try to be efficient with our time, we'll start on the 16th with Bill C-282.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-282 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here in the Bloc Québécois, we work as a team. Protecting and promoting supply management matters to all of us, not just the member for Montcalm, as does the outcome of tomorrow's vote.

Supply management has been a priority for me since I first came to the House in 2015, and, as the sponsor of Bill C‑282, I have to say that, for my friend and colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, protecting supply management has truly become an obsession. That obsession can be satisfied only once Bill C‑282 comes into force. To make that happen, we are going to need the tenacity and skill of our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, because if Bill C‑282 makes it through the crucial vote tomorrow, it will then go to the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which our colleague is a member. I also have to say that it has the unconditional support of every member of the Bloc caucus, who stand not only with me, but with supply-managed producers.

As this debate at second reading comes to a close, I see that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and his party will support my bill. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food held a press conference to announce that the Liberals are supporting Bill C‑282 at every stage. It is not clear where the Conservatives stand. They will sleep on it, but let us not take anything for granted, even though Bill C‑282 is identical to Bill C‑216, which, in case it needs to be repeated, received the support of a majority of members before the last unnecessary election.

I travelled around some of Quebec's major agricultural regions with my colleagues, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We met a farming community that is more mobilized than ever and determined to defend and promote supply management. We also met Quebeckers who care deeply about the advantages of this agricultural model. Indeed, supply management has proven its worth, especially during the pandemic, in terms of self-sufficiency and food security, and consumers are finding that they have access to an adequate supply of high-quality food at competitive prices. They actually want to bring farmers closer to their plates. They want farms with a human dimension, not mega-farms that are fuelled by overproduction and the waste of food and resources.

Farmers in the United States actually want to return to supply management, because their model, based on overproduction, favours only mega-producers and makes human-scale farms disappear. This often means that quality disappears, as well. Consumers can see the beneficial effects of supply management on sustainable agriculture, on land use and on regional economies.

Our producers deserve to no longer feel threatened every time a free trade agreement is negotiated. They want predictability, they want to be able to imagine the future, to be able to ensure succession and to preserve their quality standards. The time has come to take action. All countries protect sectors of their economy that they consider to be essential before sitting down at the free trade table. In the United States, that is the case for cotton and sugar.

After several motions were unanimously adopted by the House of Commons, successive Conservative and Liberal governments did not keep their promises and, on three occasions, made long-term and irreparable breaches. Only one law will prevent this from happening again. My mother used to say that it is never too late to do the right thing. If we truly respect those who work to feed us, we must walk the talk and vote for Bill C‑282.

Therefore, I invite all Conservative parliamentarians who have yet to be convinced to vote for Bill C-282 so not one more government will take it upon itself to sacrifice, on the altar of free trade, supply management, our agricultural model and the men and women who feed us.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent Shefford, a riding that is located in the region known as Quebec's pantry. We are proud of our farmers. Agri-tourism is at the heart of my riding's economy. I love going around to all the public markets and talking to local farmers.

Naturally, the subject of Bill C-282, supply management, is vital to many of them. During the last election campaign, I promised the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Haute‑Yamaska that I would fight tooth and nail for supply management and introduce a bill. I also made the same promise during a press conference with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the riding next to mine.

It is therefore with great humility and tremendous respect for the the work of the first dynamic trio who recently went to bat for the vital issue of supply management that I rise to speak on this subject. I am talking about my dear colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Montcalm and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I will begin my speech by talking about the importance of supply management. Then, I will remind the House of the Bloc's historic role on this issue and close with the words of some farmers from my riding.

First, the bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include the protection of the supply management system as part of the minister's responsibilities. It adds supply management to the list of directives the minister must take into account when conducting business outside Canada, including in international trade.

Once this bill comes into force in its entirety, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up for supply-managed farmers in front of our trade partners. The minister will henceforth have the mandate to negotiate agreements without creating breaches in the system, as it did during the signing of the three most important international trade agreements of the past decade.

The bill has become necessary, not least because of the serious breaches that previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, opened up and negotiated in the last international trade agreements. These breaches in the supply management mechanism prevent the system from working effectively by attacking the integrity of its basic principles, namely pricing control, production control and border control.

In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. This is a system that was put in place in the 1970s. It ensures that we produce just enough to meet domestic demand while avoiding overproduction and waste. It also ensures price stability.

Prices are controlled by setting a price floor and a price ceiling so that each link in the chain gets its fair share. That includes the consumer, who can be sure of getting a very high-quality, ethically farmed local product. Another aspect is border control, which includes very high tariffs and import quotas, preventing foreign products or by-products from invading our market. Because the market is largely closed to imports and there are price controls in place, producers do not end up in a never-ending race to lower production costs.

The current government is taking a number of worrisome actions that compromise the ability of Canada—and especially Quebec, which has a different agricultural reality—to choose the type of agriculture it wants to develop. In fact, the recent free trade agreements, particularly the one with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, will have catastrophic consequences for certain products and processors under supply management.

Border control is the pillar most weakened by the international agreements. However, given that supply management has never come under fire from the World Trade Organization, or WTO, Canada has every right to protect its markets so long as it complies with the degree of openness established by the WTO.

If international agreements and the WTO give Canada the right to protect its markets, why have there been concessions? It is because Canada cannot cope with pressure from trading partners during negotiations. It is as simple as that. It succumbs to lobby groups and arguments made by other countries that want access to an as-yet untapped market at all costs.

Despite the new aid programs, which were a long time coming, it is abundantly clear that no compensation can possibly make up for the permanent damage caused by concessions in agreements with Europe, the Pacific Rim nations, the United States and Mexico. Accordingly, the Conservatives' argument about how compensation was promised under the Harper Conservatives during the opening rounds of the first two agreements is false.

Second, I want to stress the following point: The Bloc Québécois has always defended supply management in Ottawa. This is the second time that this bill has been tabled and, if not for the unnecessary election that the Prime Minister called in August 2021, Bill C‑216 might have made it to the Senate by now.

By contrast, the House had to adopt four motions unanimously to ask the federal government to fully protect supply management. However, the Liberal and Conservative governments presumably did not feel bound by this commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements. In fact, because of the concessions that were made, these agreements were catastrophic for agricultural producers and processors under supply management, who are now wondering about their future.

Supply management is a model that is envied around the world, especially in jurisdictions that have abolished it. In Quebec, agriculture is practised on smaller farms where there is a much greater concern for quality and respect for the environment. While Quebec's quality-centred agriculture sector is flourishing, with an ever-increasing variety of local products and organic farming, Ottawa is taking the opposite approach by encouraging more industrial agriculture.

Until the Quebec government is present at international negotiations and until it gets to act as the sole architect of agricultural policies, there is a serious risk that Ottawa will align the federal government with the needs of western Canada. The Bloc Québécois simply wants the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to keep the promise they have made more than once to stop making concessions at the expense of supply-managed producers. That is all.

It was Stephen Harper's Conservatives who got the ball rolling in 2008. Supply management first started crumbling with the Canada-Europe free trade agreement negotiations, because the Canadian government started putting supply management on the table, something it had never dared to do in the past. Since then, there has been one breach after another.

Supply management has always been a key issue to the Bloc Québécois. During the entire time that the Bloc Québécois had a strong presence in the House, which I remember well, as I was an assistant then, the government signed free trade agreements with 16 countries and fully protected the supply management system.

During the federal election that followed the creation of the WTO, in other words the June 1997 election, defending the supply management system was already one of our election priorities. That was quite a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to move a motion in the House calling for the pillars of the supply management system to be fully maintained. The House will recall that the motion was adopted unanimously by all parties. What is more, for practically every major negotiation, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to protect supply management. We are the defenders of supply management, the voice of supply-managed farmers.

Third, I want to share the words of farmers back home. Nancy Fournier, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby who is a member of the board of directors of the Haute-Yamaska branch of the UPA and part of the next generation of Quebec farmers, told us that she is proud of our efforts and our support for agriculture.

Denis Beaudry, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby, said the following: “The bill is very relevant because we are fed up with supply management being used as a bargaining chip in treaty negotiations. From a more local perspective, the riding of Shefford is home to many supply-managed businesses, so when supply management is mishandled, the agricultural community suffers. I look forward to seeing whether the other parties will support the bill. The government said that it would no longer compromise on supply management. We will see.”

Valéry Martin, a communications advisor at UPA de l'Estrie, said the following: “Supply management provides stability and helps maintain the country's food self-sufficiency. Supply-managed farms are everywhere, keeping our communities strong. There are not many sectors that can provide this kind of predictability, food security and superior quality products without direct subsidies.”

I want to say one last thing. Without supply management, there would not be many people left in Abitibi, Saguenay, Lac‑Saint‑Jean or the Gaspé, because it helps ensure that there are family farms all across our beautiful Quebec nation. If there is one economic sector that is key to how our land is used in Quebec, it is the agricultural industry. The statistics speak for themselves. With $9.1 billion in sales generated by just over 42,000 farmers on 29,000 farms, Quebec agriculture is essential, important, vital.

Agriculture is going through a very difficult period, however. We are at a crossroads, where we will have to choose between following the trend of more open markets and protecting domestic markets in order to promote human-scale agriculture. We will need strong agricultural policies that will help local farmers make a living providing top-quality agricultural products to consumers.

Consumers are also placing increasing demands on farmers. Farmers are being asked to produce better-quality food that is more diverse at a lower price. They are also being asked to protect the environment and use Quebec's land to benefit all of society. As incredible as it may seem, despite the meagre support they receive, farmers are doing a brilliant job of rising to this challenge, despite the pandemic, the labour shortage, the disastrous consequences of the free trade agreements, the war in Ukraine and the inflation crisis.

We must respond to the requests of this sector that feeds us, that sustains us. Tomorrow, let us put partisanship aside and vote in favour of Bill C-282. We must take action.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure and a privilege to stand in the House and speak to supply management. At one time, I had the honour of being the official opposition critic for international trade, so I remember well this issue and how deeply it engages so many people who live in this country.

I also recognize the threats that supply management has been under for a long time. This bill, Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management, is introduced by my colleague from Montcalm, whom I have the pleasure of serving with on the health committee. I want to congratulate him for this bill, because I think it is a very important and necessary piece of legislation that, unfortunately, is required because supply management has been under threat by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, which have continued to push trade deals that increasingly carve away at one of the key pillars of supply management.

This bill would forbid the minister from promising to make larger percentages or amounts of imported dairy products, poultry or eggs, which are supply-managed products in this country, eligible for lowered or waived tariffs. In other words, it would forbid the minister to reduce tariffs applied to these goods when more than are eligible for lowered or waived tariffs are imported.

It is unfortunate that we even have to do this, because I have stood in the House for a number of years when successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passionately risen and stated their undying commitment to supply management and their commitment to the farmers in their ridings that they would never encroach upon this very well-thought-out and important system, and then have turned around and negotiated trade deals that increasingly give other countries increased quotas to come into our country.

Why is that a problem? I am going to start by explaining just a little bit what supply management is. It is a system that started in the 1970s and that was meant to provide farmers in key industries in this country with the ability to have a stable income and to know how much supply would be provided in any given year. This is the real strength of the system. It is a system that rests on three key pillars.

It was brought in because those farmers were suffering through very wild price fluctuations, especially on commodities: One year they might do very well, but the next year they would face ruin. Many farms experienced great difficulty in planning for the future. We know that if one wants to stay competitive and maybe even have an edge in agriculture, investments in technology and machinery are absolutely critical. Supply management provides that certainty, so that farmers can make those investments with the firm knowledge that they will be able to recoup their investment and sell their goods for a fair price.

The three pillars of supply management are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. It has been referred to as a three-legged stool. Of course, we all know that if we affect one leg of a three-legged stool, then the whole seating structure is at risk. What has been happening in the trade deals, negotiated and signed by successive Conservative and Liberal governments, is that they have focused on the import control leg of the pillars and they continue to allow more and more goods to be imported into Canada in those supply-managed sectors, which of course threatens the entire system.

What this bill would do is remove the ability of the trade minister, when negotiating a trade deal, to put those supply-managed commodities on the table and to trade off, as it were, supply-managed sector goods for other trade benefits.

This happened in the TPP. It happened in CUSMA. It happened in CETA. Those agreements did allow, first the European Union, then the TPP countries and now the United States and Mexico, to make ever-increasing inroads into being able to get more of their goods into Canada. I will try to put that into perspective, to see why it could be so destabilizing.

It is my understanding that the entire production of milk in Wisconsin would be enough to serve the entire Canadian market. One can only think about those very large corporate farms in the northern United States that, if they were able to have untrammelled access to the Canadian market, would be able to flood Canada with products on an economy of scale that would make it impossible for Canadian farmers to compete.

The other factor that is critically important is that supply-managed sectors also give us the ability to make made-in-Canada regulations around the production of our food. For instance, there are certain growth hormones, certain ways of production and certain chemicals that are permitted in other countries that Canada would not want to have in our food system.

At the end of the day, Canadians, when given a choice, would like to source their food from local producers. Canadians want to know that they are supporting their neighbours, their small towns and rural Canada, and that we are helping those farmers and those farm families to make a decent living. We want to know that our food is produced in humane, high quality, safe and healthy manners. This means that Canada should have control over our domestic food production. Again, most Canadians support that and I know that the vast majority of farmers in supply-managed industries also support that.

I want to just touch briefly on a couple of myths. There is this myth that this artificially increases the price of these goods and the Canadian consumer is somehow being exploited or taken advantage of by the supply-managed sector. Nothing could be further from the truth because what supply management does is provide stable prices. I know that right now in this country we have a crisis in the price of food, but in regular times, generally when someone goes to the store to buy a litre of milk or a dozen eggs over the last 20, 30 or 40 years, they know that they are going to be faced with a stable price. In non-supply-managed countries, they may have extraordinarily cheap eggs and milk one year and then if there is bad production in the next year due to bad weather, blight or disease, the prices of those goods skyrocket. Therefore, what supply management does for consumers in this country is provide a stable source of high-quality, supply-managed goods, including poultry, eggs and milk, at stable prices. That ensures that everybody has access to these excellent products at all times.

I know that I speak for my New Democrat colleagues when I say that we are firm, committed and passionate believers in the supply-managed sector. We know it is a system that works well for rural Canada, for farmers and for consumers. To use the old metaphor, “if it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

We also know that the forces that are constantly wanting to cut this away are not forces that care about Canadian farmers, small-town communities, rural Canada or consumers in Canada. Rather, they represent large agribusiness, usually multinational agribusiness, or right-wing economic ideologues who are just pursuing a free-market frenzy philosophy without any regard for the actual impact that this will have on our community and our country.

Therefore, we are very proud to support this bill to committee. We look forward to listening to the evidence and testimony. I want to again congratulate my colleague from Montcalm for this excellent bill. We look forward to working together to strengthen the supply-managed sector in this country so that Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers have access to high-quality products at all times.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Montcalm has provided me to reaffirm the government's support for Canada's supply management system and for the bill before us. We know that our dairy, poultry and egg producers want to keep the system strong and sustainable well into the future, and so do we.

Canada's supply management system is a model of stability. It provides a fair price for farmers, stability for processors and high-quality products for consumers, and has done so for over 50 years. Supply management is a pillar of rural prosperity. It sustains farming families and rural communities.

The great contribution of supply-managed sectors to our economy is undeniable. In 2021, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated almost $13 billion in farm gate sales and accounted for over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities. In this context, supply-managed sectors have played a significant role in making Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry a leader in sustainable food production and processing with high economic growth potential.

For these reasons, the government has consistently reaffirmed its unwavering support for Canada's supply management system, including in the context of international trade agreements.

During the negotiations of the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, Canada faced significant pressure to dismantle the supply management system. I cannot stress enough how hard we had to resist. However, we succeeded, and all three pillars of the supply management system remain firmly in place: production controls, pricing mechanisms and import controls. Looking into the future, we will continue to preserve, protect and defend all three pillars of Canada's supply management system.

For this reason, in line with the spirit of the bill, the government has publicly committed that we will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. This policy has been clearly and publicly stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Bill C-282 would make this commitment even stronger.

We have made this commitment and we will keep it. In fact, we demonstrated this most recently during the negotiation of the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, which did not include any new access for cheese or other supply-managed products.

Furthermore, the government believes that ensuring greater involvement of the public, stakeholders and parliamentarians in Canada's trade agenda strengthens the defence and promotion of our broader economic interests, including supply-managed sectors. As such, we have increased transparency in the conduct of trade negotiations and have enhanced reporting obligations to Parliament for new trade agreements.

In November 2020, we updated the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament to provide additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new trade agreements. Furthermore, in 2018, this government committed to fully and fairly compensate producers and processors of supply-managed commodities, including dairy, poultry and egg farmers, impacted by recent trade agreements.

Our government will continue to preserve, protect and defend our supply management system in the context of any challenge by our trading partners. We are confident that Canada is fully compliant in the implementation of its trade obligations, and we will vigorously defend our interests.

To close, let me reiterate the government's unequivocal commitment to maintain supply management as a pillar of strong and sustainable rural prosperity into the future. Bill C-282 is aligned with our commitment, and for this reason, we support it. The government is fully committed to defending the integrity of supply management while also continuing to pursue the ambitious trade agenda on which economic recovery depends.

The House resumed from November 16, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bibeau, let's go back to the discussion where we left off.

You say that rebating the 35% surtax on Russian fertilizer directly to producers is complicated. However, according to my research service, it would be possible to make a remission order. If that avenue was not explored, I invite you to ask the officials in your department to do it. It makes no sense for those people not to get their money.

In addition, when you assure Mr. Lehoux of your desire to protect the supply management system, I sincerely believe you, so I imagine you are going to support Bill C‑282, which we will be discussing shortly.

I am now going to ask you a question about the Canadian Organic Standard. This is not the first time I have spoken to you about it, and it is important to know whether the revision of that standard is being funded by the federal government. Do you have good news for the people in the organic agriculture sector today?

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

Madam Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the member for Montcalm for bringing forward this bill for us to consider. I appreciate having this bill because it allows me to talk about my riding and the long, storied and very rich agriculture history of the Cowichan Valley. We have multi-generational farms there.

For Cowichan tribes, in the Hul'q'umi'num language, Cowichan means the warm land. We are blessed with a beautiful little microclimate in the Cowichan Valley. We get copious amounts of rain in the winter, but we are absolutely blasted by the sun in the summer. It allows for a very unique growing climate where there is a very strong connection between local farmers and the population that they grow food for.

As to supply management, I am very lucky to have a number of dairy farms in the Cowichan Valley and a number of egg farms. In my seven years as a member of Parliament representing that amazing riding, I would be remiss if I did not point out how welcoming supply-managed farmers there have always been to me. They have always extended the courtesy of an invitation so that I can go and tour their farms to see how modern they are, how efficient they are and how the supply management system is able to give them a good income and also allow them to plan for the future.

That is a real strength of the system. It is a system that rests on three key pillars. It was brought in because a lot of farmers back in the 1970s and before were suffering through very wild price fluctuations, especially on commodities. It was really hard to try to plan for the future. Many farms experience that to this day. If one does not know what one's income is going to be in the year or years ahead, it makes it that much harder to do financial planning around the farm, and that is critical.

If one wants to stay competitive and have an edge, investment in technology and machinery is absolutely critical. Supply management has always allowed farmers to do that. When one goes to some of the dairy farms around the Cowichan Valley, one can see that they are actually serviced by remarkable robotics. It is quite incredible to see the level of technology on display.

Those three pillars are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. Like a three-legged stool, if one were to weaken one of those pillars, the whole system would be at risk. It needs all three to work in tandem, in harmony, and to also be strong.

Under our system, we have not had so much trouble with production control, which is issued through quotas, or on the pricing part. The part that has always been targeted by governments of a variety of stripes is import control. The way we do this is through tariff rate quotas. We do allow imports of certain dairy products such as eggs and poultry. They can come in at a certain rate, but once they go over the maximum amount that is allowed, a huge tariff is placed on them. That is to protect our homegrown system.

I am sure if one were to ask any Canadian, their preference would be to always have locally sourced food. I think it is a point of pride that we have developed a system where our farmers can not only thrive but also produce that good local food for their local communities.

That brings me to why Bill C-282 is before us. I can understand why this bill was brought forward. I was here in the 42nd Parliament. I remember hearing the news of how the TPP had been negotiated, the CETA and also, later on, CUSMA. Each one of those agreements started carving out more of our supply-managed market and allowing more foreign imports to come into Canada. That was despite repeated pleas from the industry to the Liberals to leave their sector alone. Now we have a bill that is going to specifically address that and curtail the ability of a foreign affairs minister to negatively impact it.

I have been very curious to see where the Conservatives will land on this bill because, in the previous Parliament, when Bill C-216 was brought before this House, I believe the Conservative caucus was split. About a third of them supported it and two-thirds were against.

I can understand the awkwardness for the Conservative Party because at one time it almost had mad Max as a leader, the famous man from Beauce. He was almost the leader of the Conservative Party. It went down to, I think, the 13th ballot. Maxime has always been very vocal in his opposition to supply management, which is a very curious thing given the region he comes from, and it may explain why he is no longer here as a member of Parliament. It will be interesting to see, when this bill comes to second reading vote, what the blue team will be able to do on this.

I will read out a few facts and figures. Last year, Canada had over 9,000 dairy farms. It is an industry that contributes 221,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP. We have over 5,200 poultry and egg farms. One statistic that has always stood out for me is that Canada, with a population of around 36 million people, has over 1,000 egg farms. In the United States, which has 10 times the population, there are just over 100. This shows the differences in the systems.

We have a system that has allowed 1,000 egg farms to thrive on a population that is a tenth the size of our southern neighbour. We know the state of Wisconsin produces more milk than our entire country. Farmers there, unfortunately, have suffered negatively from wild price fluctuations. I know, from talking to farmers, that many of our southern neighbours do look north in envy of the system we have in place here.

Bill C-216 was successfully referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and reported back to the House. Unfortunately, in 2021, we had to deal with an unnecessary election, which had the effect of killing the bill outright. I hope we have enough runway for this bill to make a longer push this time. I am certainly going to be giving my support for it to be heading to committee, just as I proudly did last time.

If we look at the mechanics of this bill, we need to take a look at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. Section 10 basically spells out all of the functions, duties and powers the minister of foreign affairs has. For example, the ability to conduct diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of our country and foster the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce. These are a few examples of what the powers and duties are, as they currently exist in the act.

What Bill C-282 seeks to do is to basically prevent the foreign affairs minister from making any kind of a commitment by international treaty or agreement that would have any effect of increasing the tariff rate quota, so basically allowing more foreign imports to come in, and of course reducing the tariff rate on that particular quota that is coming in.

Again, it is born out of the experience of dealing with Liberals over the last seven years, where they repeatedly stood up in the House and said that they were the strong defenders of supply management, but every single trade deal that came through the House and was enacted was always slicing a bit more of the pie away. I understand why this bill is before us.

I am always happy to have the opportunity to talk about farmers, not only those across this great country but also those in my riding, and I am always happy to stand here as a strong defender of supply management, as all New Democrats always have been. I look forward to this bill getting another turn at committee. I congratulate the member for Montcalm for bringing it forward.

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise in the House to contribute to the second reading debate on Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

It is a particular honour any time I get to speak to a bill where I can highlight the work that the hard-working farmers and farm families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada are doing not only to feed Canadians, but quite literally to feed the world.

Bill C-282 may sound familiar to some members and to some Canadians because it is an identical copy of Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament, which was introduced by another Bloc Québécois member of Parliament, the dean of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Members will recall that the bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the unnecessary summer election.

I recognize that both members who introduced this bill have a strong commitment to the supply management industry, which this party and many Canadians across the country certainly support.

I know there are some in this country who may not have the same vigour in supporting supply management, but I think it is important in a bill such as this one that we have a nuanced and thoughtful discussion on its strengths and weaknesses, how it may contribute to the situation, and how it may affect, negatively or positively, future trade deals in decades to come.

I want to talk briefly about food security. If we have learned anything during the past two and a half years of the pandemic, it is the importance of food security. When we have seen broken supply chains and shortages of goods on shelves across the country, it reinforces the necessity of a strong domestic production system.

We need to be able to feed the citizens in our country, but also to export the products that are created here in Canada across the world. I might add that when we have a country that is agriculturally as rich as Canada is, it is a crying shame that there are still Canadians who are food insecure. No Canadian, no person living in this great country of Canada, should be food insecure when we have the great natural benefits of our food production system here in Canada.

I have the honour of representing perhaps the greatest agricultural riding in this country. Perth—Wellington is home to the most dairy farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most chicken farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most pork producers of any area in Ontario, and it is in the top five for beef production as well.

Perth—Wellington has some of the most fertile farmland anywhere in the world. It is some of the most productive farmland that we will find anywhere in the country. The cost of that farmland reflects that, as we are now seeing land sales of over $35,000 per acre in Perth—Wellington and across southern Ontario.

I say that to emphasize the importance of the supply managed commodities, but also the non-supply managed commodities as well. Canadians and Canadian agriculture have certainly benefited from supply management, but there are also benefits from the world market that comes with international trade.

I would note that Perth—Wellington is home to more than 62,000 dairy cows, which is more than the number of people who voted in Perth—Wellington in the last election.

According to Statistics Canada, Perth—Wellington has over 350 chicken and egg farmers and produces over 28 million eggs. That is enough to make 9.3 million omelettes if one uses three eggs to make an omelette. We produce, in the combined counties of Huron and Perth, 542,270,559 litres of milk each year. That is enough milk for each Canadian to have a glass of milk for 56 consecutive mornings.

Those same dairy farmers and farm families provide over $1.2 billion to our national gross domestic product, and that is only in the counties of Perth and Huron. If we combine the counties of Wellington, Dufferin, Peel and Simcoe, which produce 385 million litres of milk, that is another $800 million added to Canada's GDP.

Let us remember as well the great influence of new technology on our agriculture sector. Agriculture is at the leading and cutting edge of technology. We have robotic milkers that have made advances in the dairy industry. We see folks in the beef industry making concrete efforts to increase sustainability and decrease greenhouse gas emissions within the industry. They are doing it on their own. They are doing it because it is the right thing to do. It is beneficial to farmers and the industry, who know the benefit and know they are the closest to the environment, the closest to the land on which they are stewards.

I have had the great honour and privilege to visit so many local farms in my community. I know the commitment these farmers and farm families have not only to feeding our communities, but also to playing their part in the great global supply chain and contributing to increased sustainability. It is important that these farmers have a fair and predictable marketplace where they can compete domestically and, for those who export, internationally.

All is not well in the agriculture industry. Certainly, farmers and farm families are facing the brunt of the inflation crisis and the challenges within the supply chain failures that have been caused by the Liberal government. Fuel, heat, feed, fertilizer, equipment, all of these costs are increasing at a rate that is not sustainable. One proposal from this official opposition is doing one small part to make that better. Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, would exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax for on-farm use. Canadians know that when farmers are drying their grains they need those things and for the government to apply the carbon tax just does not make sense. I am pleased that bill has finally made it out of committee and will be returning to this House for report stage and third reading debate. I am very pleased that my friend and colleague from Huron—Bruce was the one who was able to shepherd the bill through.

What we are seeing as well are the fertilizer tariffs. We still have not seen meaningful action from the government regarding the costs that were imposed on Canadian farmers for fertilizer purchased before March 2. In fact, just today I received another letter from the Minister of Agriculture, as I had begged her to address this, and once again she has failed to provide an encouraging response on this matter.

Farmers and farm families need support and reassurance from the federal government, not ongoing challenges, including, I might add, the unfair, unscientific approach to front-of-pack labelling labelling. The government was finally forced to back down from having it on ground beef and other single ingredient products.

The Liberal government unfortunately neglects too many farmers and farm families in the agriculture industry. In fact, if anyone had listened to the fall economic statement earlier this month, they would have found that a focus on agriculture was sorely lacking.

I recognize that this bill, Bill C-282, is largely a reaction to concessions that the Liberal government made in the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, the CUSMA, in which further concessions were made for dairy, poultry and eggs. I would note that it was under our Conservative government, under the strong leadership of the former minister, the member for Abbotsford, that Canada committed to trade deals with dozens of international countries, where we expanded our foreign markets, all while ensuring the supply management industry was properly protected. That is the approach the Conservative government has taken in the past and one that would be taken in the future.

Certainly, this bill has some challenges in how it would be implemented and how it would be dealt with at the negotiation table, but that is something that could be considered at the committee stage. It is important that the bill be given a thorough examination at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Recognizing that my time is dwindling, I shall move on to the final point, which is the importance of our agriculture and agri-food industry, which not only feeds our country, but helps to feed the world.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved that Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of supply-managed producers. I will present the main reasons why we, as lawmakers, should guarantee our producers a sustainable future by passing Bill C‑282.

I just want to take a moment to thank farmers in the riding of Montcalm who operate 87 supply-managed farms. Over 70% of the riding is agricultural. Its main industry is agriculture and agri-food.

Given that a number of Bloc Québécois motions to protect the integrity of supply management have been adopted unanimously, some members think it would be inconsistent not to pass this bill in principle and refer it to a committee for study. I thank them for that.

It is also a privilege for me to sponsor this bill, which I should note is identical to Bill C‑216. If memory serves, that bill won the support of a significant majority of 250 MPs in the previous Parliament thanks to my colleagues' amazing work.

I want to mention the work done by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, a brilliant and staunch defender of the interests of the agricultural sector. I also salute the contribution of my young and eloquent colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. Not to mention the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who sponsored Bill C‑216 in the last Parliament, a bill that would already be in effect if not for the useless election in August 2021. He is the dean of the House, the one who has seen the flood of good intentions in the ocean of promises to protect supply management.

These promises resulted in irreversible breaches in three major free trade agreements that unfortunately did permanent damage because the supply management system wrongly became a bargaining chip, as Gérard Bérubé wrote in Le Devoir on August 30, 2018:

Canada's supply management system has found itself in the crosshairs many times in the context of free trade and, unfortunately, has become a bargaining chip for Ottawa in the the past three major negotiations. From breach to fault, the crack continues to grow dangerously bigger.

I believe in parliamentary democracy and refuse to become a cynic, although I hold no naive beliefs about the ability of the legislative power to not let itself be subordinate to the executive, especially for those on the government benches.

As MPs, we are representatives of the people and we are legislators. We are the ones who must make the voice of the people heard and defend their interests against an executive power that all too often governs like a supreme ruler and that sometimes breaks its promises and goes against the unanimous will of the House, as expressed in the motions it adopts.

Some might think that Bill C‑282 is not necessary. They will swear, hand on heart, that they will protect supply management from now on. However, history tends to repeat itself, so I would humbly point out, by way of example, that, in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion on February 7, 2018, which said, and I quote: “That the House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.” This motion was unanimously adopted.

A month later, on March 8, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In the context of the renegotiation of NAFTA, the Bloc also moved a motion on September 26, 2017, for the government to protect supply-managed markets. I will read it:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

One month later, on November 30, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing CUSMA, an agreement meant to replace NAFTA. Unfortunately, despite the promise made to Parliament, several concessions were made, putting the financial stability of Quebec's agricultural businesses in jeopardy. Four times the House unanimously expressed its desire to fully protect the supply management system. However, both Liberal and Conservative governments clearly did not feel bound by that commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements.

These agreements have been disastrous when it comes to the concessions that were made at the expense of supply-managed agricultural producers and processors. Without the guarantee that Bill C‑282 offers to exclude supply management from free trade agreements, many are now questioning their future.

Bill C‑282 is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to expand the minister's list of responsibilities to include protecting the supply management system. Section 10 of the act would be amended to add supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canada's external affairs, including international trade. Once this bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to defend supply-managed farmers to our trading partners. It will now be part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without creating loopholes in the system, as has been the case with the last three agreements. Bill C‑282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively. They undermine the integrity of the principles that make up the system: price, production and border controls.

Supply management is an essential strategic tool in preserving our food autonomy, regional development and land use. It is also a pan-Canadian risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations. This system is based on three main principles, on three pillars.

The first pillar is supply management via a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quota to each province. The provinces' marketing boards, also known as producer associations, sell quota to their own farmers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand.

The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.

The third pillar is border control.

Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. For almost a decade now, the price of milk has been plummeting, and small farms are no longer able to cover production costs.

This price level is generally attributed to overproduction. Every year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, it was over 100 million gallons. In the state of Wisconsin, for example, nearly 500 farms per week were shutting down in 2018.

Producers can simply no longer afford to produce for so little income. One of the problems is that the dairy sector is organized around overproduction, particularly with the aim of exporting surplus production at low prices. As a former U.S. secretary of agriculture himself admitted, when you overproduce, only the biggest can survive.

Of course, there is another possible argument. Some people might think that, since producers and processors have finally been compensated, although four years later in some cases, and they are satisfied, small breaches can continue from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards.

Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the agreements with Europe, the Pacific countries, the U.S. and Mexico. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain.

In closing, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements?

The answer to that question should be yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. We have the right to do so, and many countries avail themselves of those provisions. We are not the only ones that protect certain products. Everyone does it, even the countries that are criticizing us for doing so.

It is important to remember that Canada has signed 16 free trade agreements that do not affect supply management in any way. It is therefore possible to discuss and negotiate without touching supply management.

We cannot allow the United States or other countries to force us to abandon our agricultural policies and practices. What are we really trying to protect our production from? We want to protect it from unfair competition.

Our main partner, the United States, is breaking many international trade rules while constantly asking us to give them more access. The U.S. is providing its agricultural industry with billions of dollars in illegal subsidies a year, which cuts production costs for farmers and enables them to resell their products locally or elsewhere at a lower cost. That is strictly prohibited by the WTO.

There is no question that Quebec and Canada are exporting nations. This is not about increasing protectionism. What we want is to maintain a system that has proven its worth for almost 50 years.

Since 2015, I have had the opportunity to introduce two bills, which were rejected. This is my third attempt. If the House were to adopt Bill C‑282, I would share my pride with all parliamentarians from all parties, and with all those who care about protecting an agricultural model that provides our producers with the predictability required to look to the future with dignity, to grow their businesses in the hope of proudly passing on their passion to the next generation with human-scale farms, while always ensuring that they produce high-quality products ethically. This model ensures that everyone wins, from producers to processors to consumers.

By adopting Bill C‑282, we will ensure that never again will supply management be sacrificed on the altar of free trade.

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?