House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.

Topics

Human RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I want to remind hon. members to be as succinct as possible when presenting petitions. I know it is very important to us and we want to make sure that a lot of this gets out, but try to be as succinct as possible.

SeniorsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition signed by many residents of Winnipeg North. They are calling on the government to look at ways that the OAS could be supported by looking at seniors who need the additional support.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present, virtually, a petition that comes from a number of organizations in the field of international development assistance. It is petition 10865856, in the area of climate finance. It calls for the Government of Canada to ensure that funds provided to developing countries for climate action recognize the need for adaptation, the needs of women and the need for projects that target gender equality. The petitioners specifically ask that at least 50% of Canada's public climate financing for developing countries go toward adaptation, as well as substantial support for gender equality.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I would remind all members who presented a petition to please bring it to the table themselves. We do not want to expose the pages to any dangers of COVID, so I would ask them to please remember to bring their petitions to the table.

I would ask hon. members to bring the petitions to the table themselves. We do not want to jeopardize the pages' health.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a while since I have been physically present in the House. This is my first day back, partly because of the COVID pandemic, and partly because the Prime Minister decided to shut down Parliament and prorogue to get away from the WE scandal that was damaging his reputation, due to the Liberal corruption and involvement there.

As I am here today, I want to say that 2020 has been a difficult year for everyone. My heart goes out to those Canadians who have suffered in many ways, including from the loss of a loved one, from separation and from isolation. We all need to work together to do the right thing and move forward.

As is my habit when it comes to the throne speech, I am going to talk about what I liked in the throne speech, what I did not like in the throne speech and what I thought was missing in the throne speech.

In terms of what I liked, there were a lot of noble ideas, including things that the citizens of Sarnia—Lambton could agree with and get behind, but without any evidence that action was going to be taken.

This is the third throne speech I have had the pleasure of hearing. This one was really reminiscent of 2015, with a lot of the same buzz phrases, such as “the middle class and those hoping to join them”, and “a whole-of-government approach”. Nobody really knows what that means anyway. Resiliency and agility were mentioned as other buzz words, but again, it was mostly a regurgitation of promises previously made.

I think addressing the opioid crisis is a priority, but that was a promise made by the government years ago and we are having more deaths from the opioid crisis than from the COVID crisis. Some of the other things in the speech, like pharmacare, the Liberals have been talking about since 1992. We continue not to see anything.

The speech mentioned pay equity for women. I was on the pay equity committee when I was first elected in 2015, and there has been no action taken in five years. Where is that action?

Concerning the truth and reconciliation recommendations, the government has said that the relationship with indigenous people is its number one priority, but since 2015 we have seen no action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations.

Achieving the Paris targets by 2030 is certainly a noble theme, because those targets came from the previous Conservative government. The reality is that the Liberal government is not going to achieve the 2030 targets, and it is now talking about exceeding those targets.

These things may be noble, but where is the action?

One of my constituents pointed out that the promise to plant two billion trees in 10 years is way behind, and if the Liberals want to get going, they are going to have to plant 547,945 trees each day for the next ten years. That is another promise I do not believe is going to happen.

Affordable housing is something we desperately need in my riding, and I have been waiting for it. The Liberal government has been talking about a national housing strategy and affordable housing since I got elected. I do not know if the money is just going to the Liberal ridings and not to the Conservative ridings, but I am still waiting. It is a crisis and something we need to get behind.

I was very happy to see something about seniors in the throne speech because, in 2015, they eliminated the minister of seniors, which seemed wrong. Half of the people in Sarnia—Lambton are over 60, so seniors are important to my riding.

The Liberals said they were going to take action on long-term care. Certainly, this pandemic has shown us that we need to do something there, but there needs to be recognition that if we come up with national standards for long-term care, more resources are going to be needed. More helpers will be needed: there are not enough workers. That will increase the cost of long-term care.

How will the many seniors living on a fixed income be able to pay for that, especially single seniors, who are among the poorest in the country? Although there are a lot of noble themes, a lot was just a regurgitation of old promises.

What I did not like in the throne speech was the way the response to COVID-19 has rolled out. It has been a gong show from the beginning. The health minister said there was very little risk to Canadians. She said border controls do not work, and then flip-flopped on the mask issue. I have been sending rapid tests for approval to the Minister of Health since April of this year. To see that the Liberals are still nowhere in terms of implementing rapid tests is a big deal.

It is especially a big deal in my riding, because it is a border riding. Lots of folks are inter-married. There are people who have not been able to travel to see their dying parents, attend weddings or funerals, and a lot of people own property on both sides. Rapid tests would be a great way to make sure people could be tested for COVID, found negative, come across to do what they need to do to be part of their families without risking Canadians, and return. It is incredibly important to get this out and not just say the words but get it implemented, and implemented using a protocol at the border that I suggested to the health minister.

There were some other things that I did not like. Sarnia—Lambton has 30% of the petrochemical oil and gas production in the country, and there was no addressing western alienation or the oil and gas industry. I see nothing but further erosion with respect to this very important industry.

I have three refineries in my riding: Suncor Energy, Shell Canada and Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil. We heard today about the job cuts at Suncor. The day that it looked like the clean fuel standards were being put in place, Shell went up for sale. The Imperial Oil refinery officials are saying it is existential to them: If they do not get an exemption from the clean fuel standard, it will cost three or four billion dollars a year, and the company can be more competitive in other parts of the world. Those were things that I did not like in the throne speech.

I also did not like the single-use plastics ban that was announced. This is hypocrisy from a government that gave $35 million to Nova Chemicals, in my riding, to incentivize the stakeholders to build a $2 billion expansion in Sarnia—Lambton instead of in Texas. Of course, the Liberals had to make concessions on the carbon tax because that was not going to be competitive with Texas. We are talking about 1,500 jobs each year for the next five years, and then a bunch of permanent jobs. Now the Liberals say they are going to ban single-use plastics, which puts this project at risk. These are Canadian jobs.

Single-use plastics are not the problem in Canada. I would point out that in the middle of a pandemic, in order to keep every Canadian safe, every bit of food we got from any place was packaged in individual single-use plastics, and everybody who went to the hospital was treated with little implements that were single-use plastics that were wrapped to be sterilized. When Gatineau floods every other year, the sand is put into single-use plastic bags to keep the damage from happening. The issue in Canada is not single-use plastics. We collect a whole bunch of plastics, but we only recycle 9% of them. The issue we should be looking at is microplastic pellets in the Great Lakes. Those issues are fact- and evidence-based. The Liberals talk about being fact- and evidence-based but, honestly, they are way off base on this one and they are going to cost Canadian jobs again for no reason. I did not like that.

The response to crime is always rich coming from a government with Bill C-75, which reduced incidents like forcible confinement of a child down to a summary conviction of less than two years or a fine. It is always fun to hear what the Liberals have to say about crime. Once again, they are going to tackle crime by putting in a handgun ban. I can assure them that the criminals of this country are not going to obey a handgun ban. The lawful gun owners will, but they are not the problem. Ninety-five per cent of gun crime in this country is committed with illegal guns and guns used illegally. Once again, the Liberals are attacking the wrong problem.

What was missing in the throne speech?

An economic recovery plan was mentioned that is going to create a million jobs. I am not exactly sure where those are coming from, because the Liberals are eliminating oil and gas jobs, they are going to kill the plastics industry and they have not done anything for forestry. It goes on and on. That was missing.

Broadband Internet is a noble theme. Where is the money? My riding was promised $12 million in 2015 or 2016, and we are still waiting for that.

What about the duty-free business? I know the tourism industry is under duress. Duty free is 100% export and right now, the government is doing nothing except closing the borders and depriving tourism businesses of their revenue. Every dollar not spent there is a dollar spent in the U.S., so there is an opportunity.

Finally, I would say the understanding that it is a great time to invest misses the point that, if interest rates increase just 1%, that adds $12 billion to the debt. Provinces are crying out for more health transfers. We give about $40 billion total in health transfers, and a 1% interest rate increase could be $12 billion. Four per cent could be the entire health transfer.

We are really restricting our ability to help the country by not understanding basic math and basic economics.

With that, I will summarize by saying that it was a disappointment, but there is more to come.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. She mentioned that she was going to tell us about things that she liked in the speech. I must have missed some of that because it seemed to go in the other direction.

As a new member in 2015-16, I was on the public accounts committee and we were shocked to see how disability payments from the Canada pension plan had been significantly slowed to Canadians. In the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member will remember that we talked about the disability pension plan and our plans to change it. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, certainly supporting the disabled is important, but keep in mind that it was this Liberal government that tried to remove the disability tax credit from 80% of the people who were getting it so they could not get their disability pension. Keep in mind that this is also the government that promised the disabled a $600 payment this year, and they are still waiting for that.

It is important to support the disabled, but it is also important to do the actions to support the disabled.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

I found it admirable that she managed to split her speech into parts of the throne speech she liked and parts she did not. Mind you, one section was slightly longer and more detailed than the other.

She briefly touched on a subject that is important to me, namely access to high-speed Internet. I would like her thoughts on the following question. Does she believe that the federal government should continue to withhold money and try to interfere in programs to roll out high-speed Internet, or should it instead give the money to Quebec and the provinces so they can manage the Internet roll-out themselves? In my opinion, that would be much more efficient, but I obviously do not want to answer for my colleague.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

When it comes to high-speed Internet across the country, there is so much need that we can never have too much. The provinces have come forward and, in fact, the provinces right now are addressing the gaps that were supposed to be addressed in my riding by the federal government, because the federal government never came through with the money it was supposed to come through with. That said, there are so many gaps. We see this even in our virtual Parliament where, chronically, people are dropping off their connection, they cannot hear, their system freezes and all of these things.

The federal government needs to step up its game and co-operate with the provinces and territories to identify the gaps and then have a quick plan to fill them. We do not need a plan that will take five years. This is for business competitiveness. It is for students and those working from home, as many of us may be in this pandemic for some time. This is an urgent need.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague mentioned the Great Lakes and the microbeads issue. It is one of the good examples of Parliament, because it was passed as an NDP motion. Later on it was the Harper administration that brought it in through regulations and finally enacted it. We see industry and environment actually working together.

I would like the member's comments regarding the border and the connection of American and Canadian families. The government is finally changing its policy a little. We have been pushing for solutions, and we see some openings with regard to that. Nobody wants to have their families reunited and then get them sick, so there is a high degree of accountability on the families that reunite.

What are her thoughts about how that process might actually improve the economy, the environment and businesses as well as the families, because this does not only affect the families directly but the entire country?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I began pressing on this issue of the border and of reconciling families early in May. I was pleased to see the government come forward with the reunification of families. However, the definition was not broad enough, so I pressed again to see if we could not include people who were long-term partners. I am happy to see that come along, but there are a number of other gaps, including people who own property and are trying to go there.

Now we have the snowbirds, who want to go, of course, to Florida. Many of them own property there and would stay for some months and then return. That is why we need to have a protocol to protect people. We know that there are different frequencies of COVID in various places where people may be going, so either they should quarantine or we need to have rapid tests in place. In other countries they have tests so that if a person crosses the border, they will take a test and, if negative, be allowed to stay. It reduces the risk to the population while allowing for freedom.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Since I am the health care critic, it will not surprise anyone that my response to the throne speech is mainly about health and the fate of seniors under the current government. I will let my colleague, the agriculture critic, share his concerns on that topic. However, since agriculture is one of the main industries in my riding, I would like to acknowledge all of the farmers in my riding and tell them how proud I am to represent farmers, who never compromise on the quality of their produce and never will.

The Bloc Québécois had four conditions. Obviously, we made several proposals. We made our position clear. Before we would vote in favour of the throne speech, four conditions had to be met: an increase in health care transfers to cover 35% of Quebec’s costs; an increase of $110 a month to old age security; full compensation for supply-managed farmers to make up for the loopholes in the trade agreements with the United States, Europe and the Pacific nations, which have been allowed to stand by successive governments, Conservative and Liberal alike; and respect for areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

None of these conditions were met, announced or even touched upon in the throne speech. It should therefore come as no surprise that I will be voting against the throne speech, which I, along with other observers, see as a political diversion intended to draw attention away from the Liberal Party's inherent problems: ethical problems, not genetic problems, and the WE scandal. A number of pundits have commented on the Prime Minister’s address to the nation, saying that it was merely a partisan replay of the throne speech.

This is the same government that keeps calling upon our spirit of collaboration in these difficult times. It is true that the world is going through one of the worst health crises ever. The Liberal Party’s next slogan should be, “Do what I say, not what I do.” It is turning a deaf ear to a broad consensus in Quebec and even, in some respects, across Canada. I will get back to that. Once again, with the throne speech, the government defied a broad Quebec consensus and the unanimous will of every party in the National Assembly. That is something. It also ignored the united front presented by Quebec and the provinces with regard to health transfers, Quebec’s seniors’ rights associations, the FADOQ networks and the AQDR. That is really something.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says that he is tired of hearing the Bloc Québécois advocate for this broad consensus and unanimous demand from Quebeckers. It is my job to speak for Quebeckers in the House, because he is not doing so, despite being from Quebec. He is turning a deaf ear, as, I would imagine, are many of the Liberal members from Quebec. Who will stand up in the House to defend Quebec? The Bloc Québécois. That is why I was elected.

We are in the middle of a serious public health crisis, and public health is a matter of prevention.

Let us revisit that great idea of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, that of punting the federal government’s deficit into the provinces’ backyards. Some people found that brilliant. Jean Chrétien travelled around the world saying that the best part of this policy was that he was making cuts, but citizens were protesting in front of Québec’s National Assembly rather than the Parliament in Ottawa.

So far, there have been 25 years of cuts. Québec has tried its best to do more with less. It has shaken up structures; it has tried. However, in the case of public health and prevention, when the province is having a hard time caring for patients, when it has to send people abroad for cancer treatments, cuts have to be made somewhere.

At the Standing Committee on Health, which was trying to find solutions and understand what is happening with COVID-19, every expert witness said that we needed to learn something from the pandemic. One of the first lessons is that no one in Canada was prepared to face this health crisis. We will be able to identify the problems later in a report to be prepared by the Committee.

According to those experts, the reason why no one was prepared is the chronic underfunding of the health care sector, which laid bare the shortcomings and weak links in the system when unforeseen events of this scope occur. Year after year, transfer payments have been systematically cut.

The Conservative Party is not in a position to lecture anyone, since Stephen Harper decided on an escalator of 3%. When they were the opposition, the Liberals said that it should be 6%. It is a funny thing. Now that the Liberals have been in government for five years, they are no longer talking about increasing the escalator to 6%.

I am eager to learn what the Conservatives’ position is on the provincial united front. I have been asking the question since the beginning of the debate, but I have not gotten a clear answer. It seems they want the escalator to be predictable, but, apart from that, no one is saying much. The escalator of 3% was predictable, but still inadequate.

Do we agree there is a need to catch up? The federal government’s share of health care is almost 18%, or about 22 cents on the dollar. If nothing changes in the coming years, we will be talking about 18 cents on the dollar.

The provinces and Quebec are calling for 35 cents on the dollar, which means $28 billion more. Right now, the provinces as a whole spend $188 billion a year, compared with the federal government's outlay of $42 billion a year.

During a pandemic, we need to make sustainable and structural investments, not one-off payments. We need structural investments that will enable us to build a future and allow the system to get back on its feet. That is why it is so important to invest wisely in health care.

That is also why our seniors need a decent income. Worrying about making ends meet makes people sick. I am talking about all seniors, starting at age 65. Health issues crop up between the ages of 65 and 75, not just after age 75. We need to ensure that our seniors are financially stable. That is essentially prevention, because, at the end of the day, health care spending is much lower when people are healthy, when they do not have to worry about their income and when they live above, and not below, the poverty line.

For all of these reasons, I cannot vote in favour of the throne speech. I do not understand why the government continues to turn a deaf ear to Canadians.

What does it want? Does it want Quebec to beg? This is our money. The government needs to give us our money.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the government House leader and one of the reasons he answered the questions in the fashion he did was that there was a commitment from the Bloc party that had more focus on elections than it did on serving the people of Canada, in whatever region. It is unfortunate.

I am very much familiar with the history of health care and the funding thereof. I was a provincial MLA during the 1990s. The member referenced cuts, and there was a cut, but there was also a tax point transfer that was agreed upon in the early 1990s, which would have seen an even smaller percentage of federal dollars going to provincial coffers. It was Jean Chrétien who established back in the early 1990s the ongoing commitment of cash going to the provinces, and every year it has increased.

Today it seems the member opposite is saying all the Bloc wants is cash, yet the constituents I represent and, I would argue, constituents across this country want the federal government to play a role in health care. Why would he deny them that?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, all the Bloc wants is our money. We want our money back and we want the experts in charge. The people who have the experience, who have the knowledge and who provide the services are in Quebec, in the provinces. They should be the ones managing everything. We do not want Quebec to fall short because the federal government wants to keep the money for itself to pay down its deficits. That is how this started. When health transfers increase by 3% but system costs increase by 5%, Quebec is forced to make cuts to health care.

We need to look beyond COVID-19 patients and remember those who do not have COVID-19. They are suffering because the government is refusing to restore health transfers and hand over the $28 billion in back pay.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like start by congratulating my colleague on his speech.

The Liberals are currently waging a small partisan war with the Bloc Québécois. They talk all the time about politics and partisanship, and are accusing my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois of only wanting to trigger an election. As far as I know, the Liberals created all this by proroguing Parliament, by making an election speech that reintroduced a lot of old promises and by scorning Quebec by wanting to dictate conditions on the money they say they will send to solve Quebec's health care problems. We saw it today in question period. The Liberal government and the Liberal members have very little respect for everything that has been done in Quebec with regard to health care.

Does my colleague agree that this government has completely let things get out of hand when it comes to managing public health over the past few weeks and that, since it has absolutely no expertise at all in the matter, it should allow Quebec to manage our health care problems here in Quebec?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for money for establishing and administering national standards when what should be done first and foremost with respect to health is to keep one's word. We are dealing with a partner who told us that the cost would be split 50-50 and then decided it was not going to pay their share for 25 years. Then, when an unexpected problem arises, it tells us that we did not do what was required, it tells us how to do it and what's more, it tells us that it is going to establish standards.

First, that party should start by contributing what it was supposed to. Then, it should look after matters falling under its own jurisdiction. Once it starts looking after its own affairs properly, things will go better. One of the lessons to be learned is that everyone should stick to their own jurisdictions for the good of our citizens.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for clearly illustrating the financial strains that so many governments find themselves in during this pandemic. Of course, that burden has also been borne by the members of our society who are unable to deal with many financial costs.

One group that has benefited very well is millionaires and billionaires. While Conservatives and Liberals seem fine to leave them be, I am wondering what the thoughts of the Bloc Québécois are on bringing in a wealth tax, especially since 74% of Quebeckers are in favour of this. Is he in favour of making sure that the very wealthy members of Canadian society pay their fair share, so the ones on the margins of society are not bearing the brunt of that by themselves?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I recall the first measure introduced by the Bloc Québécois in 2015, by my colleague from Joliette. This measure was going to put a stop to the use of tax havens. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against the motion, even though it would have enabled us to recover a huge amount of money. In fact, if everyone paid their fair share, and if the big banks' money did not leave Quebec and Canada's economy, we might not have to have so many debates about this.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, as agriculture and agri-food critic, I will obviously be talking about agriculture, as my colleague from Montcalm stated earlier.

Quebeckers and Canadians care deeply about agriculture and agri-food. Last year, we saw the importance of food sovereignty, food autonomy. We realized that it was important. Unfortunately, the recent throne speech was a pathetic exercise in public relations that was completely devoid of new measures. Actually, that is not entirely true: There were some new measures, all of which further encroached on areas of Quebec jurisdiction. That is why we are going to vote against the throne speech, unless major changes are made. Let us be optimistic.

I would not want to ignore the sacrifice that the agri-food industry has made over the past year and is still making. I would like to acknowledge everyone who goes to work every morning to keep us fed. Of course, I am talking about farmers, food processors and agri-food workers. I would like to thank them, because we know we will have all the food we need.

However, we learned that buying local is important. We must seize this opportunity and change course, contrary to what the government did during the crisis. It did not seize the opportunity to act in a manner commensurate with the severity of the crisis. Agriculture is the backbone of our economy. Each year, we lose 5% to 7% of our farms, and, this year, the numbers will probably be higher. We have seen milk being thrown out, huge losses in eggs, chickens, grains and agri-food in general. Modifying plants running at low capacity would have required more than a few hundred million dollars.

The food service industry is notoriously unpredictable, and sadly, we are shutting it down once again. Along with labour concerns, all of this puts pressure on the integrity of the food supply. We need to realize the scope of the situation.

The government across the aisle invested $252 million in agriculture during the crisis, despite the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's position that $2.6 billion were needed to make a real difference. During that time, the United States invested $19 billion, about 10 to 12 times more. That is outrageous. We need to do something. The Speech from the Throne only recycles vague promises.

We are going to talk about compensation for supply management. This was mentioned by my colleague earlier. Obviously, it is one of our conditions. There is a rather vague paragraph stating that “those in...supply managed sectors receive receive full and fair compensation”. What does that mean? Who are these workers? What sectors are we talking about? Is it all areas of production?

We want a date and we want timely announcements. Of course, I am going to be told that throne speeches are vague, but everything we are hearing is vague. It has been a long time, and it is not the first time we have seen this paragraph. It is high time something happened. We need help, and quick. As far as milk is concerned, we need the second year's payment. We have to budget for the remaining seven years with amounts because our producers get up in the morning to feed us, but they need predictability. They need to know what to expect next year. They need this money especially during the COVID-19 crisis. The other supply-managed sectors have received absolutely nothing yet. The committee was about to study the issue, but then came prorogation. Why was that? There was a scandal to hide, that is why. The government was left to idle for five weeks, and then we were brought back to the House to vote in four and a half hours on measures that could total up to $57 billion. That is more than $200 million for every minute of debate.

I would like to remind the House that agriculture got $252 million. That is outrageous. The money needs to go out. Poultry, turkey, hatching egg and table egg farmers are not asking for money to put in their pockets. They are saying that they need to prepare for the unfair competition that is going to come from outside the country because those companies do not have to meet the same standards as they do. The reciprocity of standards is another issue.

We need to do something about labelling, and labels will need to be clear. Is it American milk? If so, is that clearly indicated on the carton? Of course, I encourage people to choose the blue logo. I also encourage them to check and see where the chicken in their chicken pot pie comes from.

If governments do not make good choices, consumers will have to. Our supply-managed farmers need time to prepare. Stakeholders are telling us that the amounts for these modernization and marketing programs were decided in August 2019. That was over a year ago now, and this is urgent.

I want to reiterate that I appreciate the throne speech's good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. Supply management ensures stable prices, high quality products and a stable income for the folks who live in rural areas. Supply management promotes buying local, which I believe is trendy these days. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think it is catching on.

It may be a good idea to keep our supply management system. This system supports the dynamic use of our land. It is good not only for supply-managed farmers, but also for veterinarians, farm equipment dealers, truck drivers, mechanics, nutritionists, animal feed producers and many more. This system keeps our rural areas in business. It keeps these areas full of life and makes them an attractive place to live.

Unfortunately, successive governments have given way in response to the WTO loopholes. There was the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union in 2017, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in December 2018, and CUSMA this past July. In yet another unkept promise, CUSMA came into effect in July instead of August, as planned, costing the dairy industry $100 million. We do not hear much about these breaches, but it bears repeating. Foreign producers will ultimately account for 18% of the dairy industry.

The Bloc Québécois believes that we need to protect supply management, since it has already been damaged enough. We are saying loud and clear that all supply-managed sectors must receive the money they are owed as soon as possible. Processors are worried today because they were not mentioned in the throne speech. Everything is vague and potentially full of loopholes. The Bloc Québécois will be keeping a close watch. Poultry, egg and dairy processors have also suffered because of these trade agreements, and they need to receive the money they are entitled to. The government needs to keep its word. It does not seem all that complicated to me.

We need to deal with supply management once and for all. We will table a bill. It is coming. With all the noise we will be making, members will be too embarrassed to vote against it. I invite all members of Parliament here in the House to protect and promote our model.

We have plenty of other proposals in our recovery plan. The other parties sometimes say that the Bloc Québécois is only here to complain and demand money. Last week, we were told that we were acting like we were at the ATM. We are not acting like we are at the ATM. It is our people’s own money.

The problem lies in the division of responsibilities in this federation. Half of the money goes to Ottawa, but 75% to 80% of the responsibilities fall on the provinces. That is the problem. There is a reason we want to leave this federation, and that is part of our argument. In the meantime, since we are still part of the federation, we come here and ask for our money, because it is our people’s money and we need it for our long-term care homes, among other things.

I am getting so carried away that I will not have enough time to talk about our recovery plan. However, I will say that we need to encourage and promote greener practices, riparian buffer zones, organic farming, biomethane production, the transition to clean energy sources, local agriculture, greenhouse production using clean energy sources, and agri-tourism. We also need to transfer responsibility for temporary foreign workers to Quebec.

We are proposing quick adjustments, but we are asking that the responsibility be transferred to Quebec to make things easier. Earlier on, I spoke about the labels on all the products we are letting in from abroad. Do these products meet our standards? Are they properly labelled? Will our consumers have the information they need to make informed choices? Slaughter capacity in the regions is also a priority, an extremely urgent matter for which measures need to be implemented.

I will continue as I answer questions.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

4:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague across the way would recognize that, when it comes to supply management, we have been a very strong advocate for it not only while we have been in government but also when we were in opposition. When we look at trade agreements, there is compensation there for supply management. We recognize the true value of supply management and we will continue to fight for its existence. In fact, it was the Liberal Party along with farmers that created the whole supply management system.

ln addition to that, we need to recognize how important that trade is. We have created and have seen new markets being created for farm products. In terms of the pork industry in the province of Manitoba, it is doing exceptionally well. There are a lot of limitations because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but generally speaking, the future for our agricultural communities is looking positive because of world demand and the protection of supply management. Would the member not agree?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great question, which will allow me to speak about several things.

We agree on free trade. The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of trade, but it must be done in an intelligent manner. Canada exports pork and will continue to do so. That does not mean that we must sacrifice our supply management system for the sake of free trade.

I am told that Canada promotes supply management. I am sorry, but I will refer to the last agreement. First, it came into effect in July rather than August. That is already one promise that was not kept. The agreement opens up access to 3.59% of the dairy market, an additional 62.9 million kilograms of access to the Canadian chicken market, and access to 3.5% of the turkey market. I could go on.