Debates of Nov. 24th, 2020

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know identity theft is a crime. We saw what happened with LifeLabs; over 15 million people's data was stolen. An employee at Desjardins stole the personal data of four million people and affected 173,000 businesses.

We are not discussing the Criminal Code today, but maybe the member could talk about what changes he would propose in dealing with those issues to ensure there are steep penalties so that does not happen again.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I want to take this opportunity to talk about crisis management.

In my opinion, Desjardins' response is the gold standard. It acknowledged the thefts and sent a personal letter to its clients or, specifically, to the clients that had been affected. As a result, they were able to act very quickly.

There have been other situations. Equifax chose to cover up what happened to protect its reputation. The Bank of Montreal and CIBC did the same until the hackers themselves put a message online. There are dozens of similar examples.

Desjardins knows its clients. In all likelihood, it is other financial institutions, and not banks, that fall under federal jurisdiction. Once we identify the problem we can find a solution. The first solution is transparency.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question that relates to applicability, which was mentioned by my colleague.

In my previous job as a software development professional, I learned that the European general data protection regulation was applicable to anyone who provided goods and services. Our company, even though we registered it in Canada, does business there as well. Therefore, I imagine many of the businesses in Quebec would also do business in Europe, and the GDPR would be applicable.

Could he comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, and I would even add that this should apply to the federal government.

The government does not verify identities online, and any verifications that do exist are cursory ones. I should say that the government is not doing what it needs to do to ensure that an applicant is actually who they claim they are. As we have seen with the CERB, this can really open the system up to risks like identity theft, which have serious consequences for Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to Bill C-11 today.

This is an extremely important subject that concerns the security and protection of all citizens' personal information. As my colleague already clearly stated, over the past 10 years and during the current pandemic, there have been a multitude of phishing scams via telephone, the Internet and online shopping platforms, which are increasingly popular.

I believe that Bill C-11 is timely and will correct major problems that we have been seeing for some time in different areas. For example, there have been cases of bank fraud, notably at Desjardins, and the federal government has also been affected. I know that the bill does not apply to the federal government, but this issue remains a very serious concern.

Take, for example, a situation that has occurred in my riding of Terrebonne. For the past month or so, we have been seeing a whole host of complaints related to the Canada Revenue Agency, from people whose identities were stolen by fraudsters who claimed CERB cheques in their name. This shows that there is a gap at the government level, which is very interesting.

I understand that we need to look at what requirements should be established for banks and e-commerce, but I think that there may be some aspects of the bill that we could rework. We are only at debate at second reading for this bill, which means that the bill could be amended and improved to give it more teeth, make it more robust and ensure that it is more responsive to the various threats that could arise in the future. Since we are essentially talking about technology here, the new law should be able to adapt its mechanisms to the changes in technology that will occur in the coming years.

However, there are a number of troubling issues that the bill does not address. For instance, metadata is not included in the bill. I am not an IT expert, but metadata is something that we see regularly. For example, if we spend a few minutes on the Internet searching for a camp chair, it is not unusual to then see ads for various types of camping equipment.

That is worrisome because metadata can be used to target specific individuals. When a group of individuals is targeted, there is a risk of more targeted threats or cyber-attacks. That is why I think it would be a good idea to improve the bill by addressing the issue of metadata.

The federal government, and the Canada Revenue Agency in particular, has quite a lot of work to do on matters of identity theft. The CRA's mandate is to manage revenues on behalf of the Canadian government.

However, what happens in the case of computer fraud as a result of identity theft? In that case, it becomes more a matter of public safety and national security. In many cases, fraud and identity theft, particularly in the banking sector, are committed from abroad using fairly sophisticated electronic means.

Once again, I am not familiar with the mechanisms used to investigate these predominantly computer-based threats or to protect us from them.

I am also referring to the recent debate we had—and I do think this is related—on 5G networks in Canada, in terms of the technological means that will be deployed over the next few years to protect the IT infrastructure itself from all threats and foreign influences.

In some cases, the threat might involve political or public influence. In other cases, it could literally be individual hackers from around the world who use technology, including 5G networks, to circumvent security mechanisms and break into various systems to steal identities and the personal data of the various citizens that we are meant to protect.

It seems to me that the general intent behind Bill C-11 is a worthwhile one, crucial even, as I said in my opening remarks. However, we also need to tackle the technical side. I get the sense that some issues were not considered from all angles so as to ensure that the bill reinforces the back door as much as it does the front door.

Once again, protecting online identity is the most tenuous aspect, and we are trying to rectify that here. I am concerned about a number of aspects of the authentication mechanisms, because that is really what this is about. Currently, many banks, institutions and businesses use a variety of platforms to secure and protect the identity of online customers and consumers.

As a few minutes on the Internet will show, private online commerce companies use many different authentication platforms and mechanisms. It might be a good idea to consider using the bill to standardize those online transaction authentication mechanisms, but the government seems unwilling to do that in the current version of Bill C-11.

The government wants to have companies and financial institutions take on more of the control, responsibility and obligations of protecting personal information. The government should, however, set out some very specific measures in the bill to ensure that all companies can shoulder this responsibility. Not every company has the financial means to set up robust data protection mechanisms. I therefore think that the government needs to set some statutory requirements.

As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue pointed out earlier, a lot of small merchants and businesses do not have the financial means to improve or modernize their technology infrastructure. This issue may also need to be addressed in the comprehensive approach we are advocating today.

There is the whole issue of jurisdictions. Quebec's jurisdiction over civil law and consumer protection plays an extremely important role. We know that the laws are confined to the jurisdictions for which they were written. This is not just a Quebec and Canadian problem, but also an international one. By the way, I think it will be necessary for the government to define very clearly these famous control mechanisms and make solid political and governmental choices in connection with the new information technologies that will crop up here at home.

That is essentially where this will play out. We cannot give a foreign government control over telecommunications and computer infrastructure. It is extremely important. We are wading into another field, but to be able to protect our constituents we have to ensure that our infrastructure is not threatened by other countries or by foreign nationals, such as the hackers I mentioned earlier.

Then we have to find some form of standardization to help ensure that clients or consumers are protected during online transactions. Let's not forget the entire issue of metadata, which are a formidable tool for any bad actor wanting to target and attack groups that are more privileged or more vulnerable.

In conclusion, the federal government must ensure that Canadians can be guaranteed, in all circumstances, that a consistent international standard will be rigorously applied, and that it will be possible to efficiently identify any and all fraudsters. Identifying fraudsters has always been a problem, and the Canada Revenue Agency could speak at length about this in committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Terrebonne will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

moved that Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we have heard about supply management in the House. Every time that a motion is introduced on the issue, there is a unanimous vote and it seems that the matter is settled.

In fact, the House has already unanimously adopted three motions calling on the federal government to fully protect supply management. By all accounts, however, Liberal and Conservative governments were not bound by their commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements, those with the European union, Asia-Pacific and the United States and Mexico. These agreements and the concessions that were made to reach them were catastrophic for supply-managed agricultural producers. Their revenues dropped by more than 8.4%.

Supply management has always been a key issue for the Bloc Québécois. This system was established in 1970 to stabilize the price of agricultural products and, at the same time, ensure a decent and predictable income for dairy farmers, table and hatching egg producers and poultry producers, including turkey and of course chicken.

During the time that the Bloc enjoyed a greater presence in the House of Commons and was strongly pushing for full respect for supply management, all free trade agreements with 16 different countries fully protected the supply management system. The strong pressure and numerous interventions by the Bloc made a difference.

The World Trade Organization, or WTO, was established with the goal of eliminating all tariff barriers, and the WTO considered supply management to be one of them. Protecting supply management became an even greater priority for the Bloc Québécois after the federal election that followed the system's creation in June 1977, as any occasion the WTO had to talk about it turned into a direct attack.

The Bloc Québécois was the first party to demand that the three pillars of supply management be maintained, in a motion moved by the former member for Richmond—Arthabaska, André Bellavance, in November 2005. I remind members that the House unanimously passed this motion. All parties in the House adopted André Bellavance's motion, which read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give its negotiators a mandate during the negotiations at the World Trade Organization so that, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas, so that these sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.

This motion did not have unanimous support when it was moved, but it passed unanimously at the end of the day, after different groups of producers put pressure on their members of Parliament throughout the day.

Today the Bloc wants to go further than a motion and insert protection of supply management into legislation. We want to go further because the major Canadian parties in power do not seem to feel bound by the commitment that a motion represents. I suppose they think of it as more of a wish. We want protection of supply management inserted in a statute so that it is given force of law.

Then the governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, could no longer ignore their commitments to agriculture and the producers could see who really has their interest at heart. It is important to remember that in Quebec alone, dairy, egg and poultry producers represent 6,000 farms and 86,000 jobs.

With the exception of Ontario and Alberta, all of the other provinces have supply-managed producers so it would be disastrous if supply management disappeared.

I would like to talk about the bill that I am introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. It is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to make the protection of the supply management system a responsibility of the minister. It adds supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canadian external affairs, particularly in the area of international trade.

Once the bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up to our trade partners and protect supply-managed farmers. The bill will make it part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without chipping away at the system, as he did when the three biggest international trade agreements of the past decade were signed. Of course, I am talking about the agreements with Europe, Asia-Pacific and the United States and Mexico.

Supply management is a Canada-wide risk management tool that is designed to protect agricultural markets from price fluctuations. By doing so, it guarantees a fair and stable income for farmers in exchange for their work and their products.

In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. The system is based on three basic principles, often known as the three pillars. Dairy farmers used to give their elected representatives a little three-legged stool like the ones used for milking cows years ago. If an MP displayed that symbol on their desk, it meant they supported supply management.

The first pillar is production control via a quota system. Based on research about consumption, meaning consumer demand for dairy products, the Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quotas to each province, whose marketing boards or what are known as producer associations sell quotas to their own farmers. That ensures production is aligned with domestic demand.

The second pillar is price regulation through the establishment of a minimum price and a maximum price, so that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.

The third pillar is border control. Obviously, if we do not skew the global market, we cannot allow other countries to skew our market. That is why we use border controls to set very high tariffs and purchasing quotas to prevent foreign products or by-products from flooding our market.

For instance, there might be times when our chicken or egg farmers do not produce enough, and that is when chicken and eggs are allowed in to meet this country's needs and avoid overproduction. The principle of border control is very important and is always the one that comes under attack in international negotiations.

It is this aspect that has been weakened considerably by international agreements. Canada is opening an ever-widening door in our markets for foreign companies to sell their products here. On top of that, international trade standards are constantly seeking to reduce the tariff levels. Our largest trading partners would like to see these tariffs disappear completely, and thus abolish supply management.

For example, without supply management, an American egg producer that produces one million eggs a day could overrun the Canadian market, cut prices and ultimately take control. Border controls are very important, and that is where the government always folds. It caves, often using supply management as a bargaining chip. Since the government is supposed to represent all Canadians and since supply management is a federal program, 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.

On at least 20 occasions over the past 15 years, I have heard a prime minister or an agriculture minister commit to fully defending supply management in future negotiations of a treaty. That is not what happened in the last three agreements. The concessions made in these negotiations instead resulted in income losses for producers in the order of 8.4% to 10%. Some will say that Canada is very vast. That is the argument we are given from time to time. We are told that it is impossible to create effective Canada-wide policies that benefit all the provinces. What is more, some experts believe that applying one standardized program nationwide in agriculture or in other sectors will not stand the test of time and will make it more difficult to resolve regional problems that crop up. That was the main argument we were given for conceding part of supply management.

The second argument is that supply management does not make a substantial contribution to Canada's gross domestic product. It represents approximately 2%, so that is a good excuse for sacrificing a little bit in every negotiation. This argument fails to consider that this is a very important economic sector for Quebec and Ontario. Supply-managed goods account for about 40% of Quebec's agricultural revenues, or $3.4 billion out of $8.9 billion. Quebec's dairy sector has revenues of $2.4 billion. That is twice the amount of agricultural revenue from the pork sector, which is an excellent export sector and contributes $1.2 billion a year.

These are different agricultural markets, but the agricultural sector as a whole is very important. The problem also stems from the fact that most supply-managed production occurs in Ontario and Quebec, representing 70%. Crops such as beef, grains and oilseeds are grown for export. The government is always looking to expand markets, but supply management must not be given up in exchange for these markets. That is the problem.

Supply management has survived 16 agreements. It needs to survive any future agreements as well. This system accounts for $8.7 billion of our GDP and $2 billion in economic spinoffs. Without this policy, the agricultural sector could lose 58,000 to 80,000 jobs. On top of that, half of this country's dairy exports would be compromised.

In closing, I want to remind members that Canada is currently negotiating with five countries that are part of Mercosur, which also includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia. This bill must be passed before these agreements are concluded. I urge all members to unanimously support this bill, as we did with the previous motions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, supply management is an issue that the Government of Canada, our Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and so many others have advocated for, not only when we are in government but even in opposition, as it benefits our society to have a healthy supply management sector. In fact, if members go back to the creation of supply management, they will find that it is rooted in a Liberal government's bringing it forward. We recognized how important it was for many different reasons, which I do not think the Speaker will give me enough time to expand on.

I ask my colleague if he would recognize the value of supply management in all the different regions of our country. That is an important component of it: that it is throughout Canada and there is great benefit for all Canadians.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are regularly reviewing the supply management system, but it seems to me that they sometimes forget about that system during negotiations.

The member asked me whether this is important to all regions of Quebec. Of course it is. In Alberta, for example, there are 1,000 dairy farmers. I remember going to a cocktail party for dairy farmers during their conference in Ottawa, back when the Bloc introduced its motion in 2005. I met farmers from Alberta who came to thank the members of the Bloc for introducing the motion to fully protect the supply management system. Unfortunately, in the last three agreements, the government has made small 3% concessions, which represents about a 10% drop in revenue for all dairy farmers under supply management across Canada.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his presentation.

I would like to remind him that, when the Conservative government was negotiating free trade with our various European and Asian partners, there was a provision to pay $4.3 billion in compensation to all supply-managed producers. The current Liberal government also made compensating producers an election promise. The producers received a payment, but the rest has still not been paid out. We do not know when that will happen, because the minister is not able to tell us.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must tell my hon. colleague that he is absolutely right. I remember very well the $4.3 billion that the Conservatives promised during the negotiations with Europe. However, they were very slow to table it, and there was a change of government. The government said that it would keep that promise. Again, that is going very slowly. It is more than slow. A first instalment was paid last year, but there was nothing this year. They are now talking about $1.8 billion instead of $4.3 billion. We know that supply-managed producers are losing $450 million per year. The Minister of Agriculture urgently needs to speak with the Minister of Finance.

A budget will be tabled soon; an economic statement is coming on Monday. I hope that they will say something about this promise and that a concrete announcement will be made this year.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the government announced that it was wrapping up negotiations with the United Kingdom on another free trade agreement. We have yet to see the text of the agreement, but the government tells us that dairy farmers have nothing to worry about. I remember that when CUSMA was negotiated, there were promises up until the last minute that the agreement would not have a negative impact on dairy farmers. Does the member share my doubts about the government's fine words on this issue, and what does he think can dairy farmers expect from this agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully share the member's concerns. For now, the minister is trying to reassure us by saying that supply management is not affected by this agreement with England. Since England was part of the agreement with Europe, it should not get an extra share. England needs to get its share from Europe, nothing more, so that nothing about the Canada-Europe agreement changes. However, I still have doubts, since nothing has been signed yet and all we have is a Liberal Party promise. A little piece of supply management is always affected.

Like him, I am crossing my fingers that this does not happen. What worries me most is the negotiations that are under way with Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia, which are known as the southern countries. Supply management may be affected, particularly poultry and egg producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to bring greetings on behalf of the great people of Kings—Hants, even if it is virtually, but that is the world we are living in.

I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this legislation and giving me the opportunity to speak on the importance of supply management and what it means to rural communities across the country. I was a little disappointed in the member opposite's comments. He mentioned Ontario, Alberta and, of course, Quebec, but he did not mention the importance this has across the country, including the communities that I represent here in Nova Scotia. I look forward, in the next nine and a half minutes, to explaining what this industry means to the people I represent.

I grew up in a region called East Hants in the Kings—Hants area. It has the highest concentration of dairy and poultry supply managed farms east of Quebec, so this is a very important sector for us. It is also a key piece of our identity. Not only is it an economic driver in the sense of jobs and opportunities for producers, it is also a key piece of agricultural communities. This is not just in Kings—Hants. It is across the country. Going to high school, we would see tractors going up and down the road. Some of the students and colleagues that I went to high school with would bring their tractors to prom from whatever farm, but most importantly, from our supply managed sector.

I do not mean to pick on the member opposite because his intentions were good in bringing this to the House, but he mentioned at some point that this is a small percentage of our GDP. That may be the case, but $22 billion is the figure that I have in front of me, and is what the supply managed sector means to rural Canada. That is larger than the auto sector. That just shows the significance of what this means and the importance of having robust programs in place to support it.

I want to talk about the history of supply management for those who might be watching and may not know, or for some urban colleagues who might not know as much about supply management and its benefits. It was created, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned during questions and comments, in the 1970s by a Liberal government. At the time, there was a massive disconnect between the amount of supply that was being provided in the market and the prices that were being returned to producers. The reason for creating rationality was because our supply managed sectors deal with perishable products and producers may not have been able to get them to market in time. This program was put in place to make sure there was an equitable program to support farmers, but also to give the market certainty.

There have been critics. I would be naive to stand in the House, virtually, and suggest that people have not criticized this system and sought an alternative program to move forward, but I want to highlight some of the benefits of supply management. First of all, for me, perhaps most importantly, it allows smaller family farms to still be able to contribute in the marketplace. Whether it is the milk pooling agreements in the dairy sector or otherwise through the SM5, supply management allows farmers that are in more rural and remote parts of the country to have equal access to markets. That is ideologically important to me, and it is important for our economy to create that supply chain throughout rural Canada, from Newfoundland and Labrador, as we heard at the agriculture committee this evening, all the way to Yukon. This is truly a national policy that creates benefits.

I also want to talk about the importance of what this means. Before I was in the House and had the privilege of serving as a member of Parliament, I was an outspoken advocate for this system and what it represents. It truly is the lifeblood of rural communities. It is important that we are able to maintain it and keep it in place to support our farmers. I will relate a quick personal story, if I may.

I was a competitive hockey player. I played junior hockey in a small community called Amherst, Nova Scotia, and had the good fortune to be billeted at a dairy farm just outside of town in Linden, Nova Scotia. I stayed on the farm, played junior hockey and got to see the inner workings of a small family farm in rural Cumberland County. I can attest to the hard work that our farmers put in and the importance of this system, which allows farms like that to exist.

There are critics who would suggest that if we were to get rid of supply management it would actually lead to a reduction in prices at the retail level. I want to challenge some of those assumptions on the record here in the House. The ideology of some of the critics is perhaps conservative and more free-market based.

I am not against free-market principles, but there have been challenges. New Zealand, for example, went with a much more deregulated model. It got rid of some of its supply managed system and saw an increase in price at the retail level for milk supplies. We also talk about the World Trade Organization, and this is one way to support farmers to be able to create an equitable price.

There are other programs out there, such as the dairy margin protection program in the United States. Maybe some of my colleagues will recall a bipartisan fight in 2012. There was a chance the farm bill would not go through Congress at the time. There was speculation that milk prices would almost double in the United States without the subsidy provided.

In Europe, there is a common agricultural policy that provides billions of dollars every year to producers. Other jurisdictions of the world choose to go about it a different way. When we consider things like the importance of looking at the environment and having sustainable means moving forward, supply management becomes even more in vogue in how important it is to be able to match our domestic demand to supply, and for sustainability and efficiency.

I also want to challenge the notion there is not a competitive model built within the supply managed sector as it relates to the dairy industry. Many critics would suggest it is a system that allows all farmers to benefit and to succeed. It is simply not the case. The way the Canadian Dairy Commission helps set the price of milk, or I should say the kilograms of butterfat in different products, is based on a model that only allows 70% of farmers to break even after their costs of capital are considered.

This means that, for 30% of farms, if one is not good at managing costs, whether a larger farm or a smaller one, it is going to be challenging to get the money to recapitalize infrastructure. It is a myth, and I want to put on the record that there is not a competitive model built within the supply managed system.

I want to turn to why I am proud to be standing with a government that has fought since 1970 for supply management. When we look at CUSMA and what that trade relationship looks like, the president of the United States wanted to use the word dairy. This was important for him politically in being able to get concessions from the Canadian government.

I contrast that with the Conservative government under CETA and the CPTPP. At the time, I believe the member for Abbotsford was the minister responsible for international trade. It was a much different situation, in terms of pressure, and what the relationships of those trade deals meant versus our relationship with the largest trading partner in the world.

Our minister for trade at the time worked extremely hard. We did everything to keep the integrity of supply management in place. I contrast that with two trade deals that of course are important, and I would never suggest they are not, but the pressure to get rid of our supply management, or give concessions, was nowhere near the same.

When I talk with farmers in my riding, they seem to understand the difference and how the government was between a rock and a hard place, including on products and things that matter to the member from the Bloc such as aluminum, for example.

I could highlight the programs we put in place, such as the dairy direct payment program, which is certainly extremely important. It was $345 million to help compensate for the trade access that was given under the former Conservative government when it signed these, along with COVID supports.

I am proud to be part of a government focused on our supply managed producers. I mentioned dairy a lot, but that is not to say poultry, eggs, broiler hens and turkeys are not important. It is all so important and it all matters to the people I represent. I am pleased to see a piece of legislation in which we can talk about the importance of this system in rural Canada, and I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this forward.

I really appreciated the time to talk about a system that matters to rural Canadians. As the rural caucus chair for the Liberal Party, I am very pleased to bring some remarks to the House tonight.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is high time we had a man for prime minister who behaves like someone who understands the farming community and especially Canadians from rural areas.

Our message is clear and will remain clear: Canada must restore agriculture to its former glory and give it the recognition it deserves. It is just wrong that neither the current agriculture minister nor her predecessor were directly involved in the negotiations for the trade agreements that became the TPP, CETA and CUSMA.

The future prime minister of Canada, the leader of the Conservative Party, will rectify this situation. We are here tonight to talk about supply management. Before I talk about the Liberals' failures on supply management, of which there are many, I want to clearly state our party's position on supply management.

The Conservative leader made clear commitments during the leadership race. He made it clear and reiterated, in his discussions with the dairy industry, that there will be no further concessions in future trade agreement negotiations. He will protect supply management. He will respect supply management for our dairy and poultry farms and, most importantly, he will make sure that all farm families are involved in trade negotiations, or any other program affecting the sector, through the Minister of Agriculture, who will be at the table, not sitting somewhere else, away from the negotiations. He will allow more flexibility in allocating the management of farm assistance programs. He will not create a milk lottery, as the previous government did. Above all, he pledged to pay out all the promised compensation, while providing flexibility in how it is allocated so it is done in the way producers want.

Much more than that, a Conservative government will raise the possibility and want to renegotiate the overall limits on skim milk powder exports that were given away by the current government. A Conservative government will modernize and improve agricultural risk management programs to help producers deal with all the crises they are currently facing.

A Conservative government, and I think that this is very important right now, will also ask the Competition Bureau to investigate the impacts of abusive trade practices concentrated in the grocery industry. We know about it, and we are hearing about it these days: huge amounts of money are being demanded just to put products on grocery store shelves. This is unacceptable.

We believe it is very important to protect the food security of Canada and we recognize that supply management is an element that is essential to the success of Canadian agriculture.

Unfortunately, although Bill C-216 sets out to protect supply management in the context of future trade agreements, it could wind up doing the opposite.

First, everyone here in the House knows that any new trade agreement would be the subject of new legislation in which the Liberal government could amend Bill C-216 as it sees fit. That is what happened with the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement. The government proved that when it shamelessly opened up supply management by giving the Americans a say in the tariff schedule and when it shamelessly allowed the United States to limit our exports of skim milk powder.

Second, if this bill passes, we can be sure that potential trade partners will target supply management right off the bat and counter with their own protectionist measures. This is like drawing the other side's attention to a specific negotiation issue that could well force Canada to agree to new concessions, which would be written into a bill approving the framework agreement, and all because we ourselves put the issue on the table.

That is exactly what happened during the latest negotiations for the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement. Members may recall that the United States' first target was Mexico.

I met with a representative of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress at the beginning of the negotiations. The message they sent us was to stay calm, but then the Prime Minister of Canada got involved.

He wanted an agreement that was progressive and environmentally friendly, and he got the attention of Donald Trump. He gave in on supply management, and Canada had to struggle just to remain in this important agreement for our economy. Dairy, egg and poultry producers paid the price as the Liberals modified the existing laws to be able to give up more of our market to the United States. This is the reality.

The main purpose of Bill C-216 is to protect supply management. That is also the Conservative Party's goal.

We do not believe that Bill C-216 is a good bill to protect supply management and Canadian producers.

It is important to protect our family farms because the Liberal Party does not keep its promises and is unreliable when it comes to its relationships with supply-managed farmers, and because farmers were regrettably the only ones who were sacrificed at the negotiating table by the Liberal government's negotiating teams for the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement.

In Quebec, you cannot go one kilometre between two municipalities without seeing farms, dairy farms and all kinds of farms. Farmers reign supreme in Quebec's rural regions. If they were not there to pay taxes, there would be no more rural regions. If they were not there to maintain roads, there would be no more rural regions. We need our farmers.

The Conservative Party of Canada heard the message of producers from all the regions in Quebec. I heard it in Mégantic—L'Érable. Like the majority of my colleagues, I received 50 or so letters from producers in my riding. We have all gotten them. Their message was very clear.

People wrote that Canada's dairy farmers have had to deal with the fact that major concessions were made in recent trade agreements. By 2024, 18% of their domestic dairy production will have been ceded to foreign dairy producers. They are the ones who will provide the milk in dairy products that will end up on the shelves in our grocery stores. The concessions amount to a loss in revenue estimated at $450 million a year for dairy farmers and their families. That loss has a major and lasting impact on their farms and their communities, including their capacity to plan for the future of their families. For more than two years, and more recently in the Speech from the Throne, dairy farmers have been promised compensation. Dairy farmers were pleased to see that full compensation remains a priority, but actions speak louder than words.

That is where things go sideways in the letter we received.

The letter goes on to say that, in 2019, the government announced compensation spread out over eight years of $1.75 billion for the CETA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Despite requests for clarification and even though the first year was delivered, the farmers have yet to receive any detail on the balance for the remaining seven years. The uncertainty that comes with such an approach makes it very hard to plan the future of their farms.

Every member of the House received the same set of letters from dairy farmers across Canada. They are worried.

The letter ends with the statement that farmers believe that a promise made should be a promise kept. The time has come to keep their promises. What are the goods? What will the Liberals deliver? The Liberals' compensation plan was announced just before the 2019 election. They promised to cut a cheque the day after the election. There has been nothing more since the election. There has been total silence. There has not been one word about the seven other years or about compensation for 2020, even though there are fewer than 40 days left in the year. There has been not one word about 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, or 2026. There has not been one word about the next phase of the plan. I am only talking about dairy producers. There has not been one word about egg and poultry producers who were also promised compensation. They have not even seen the shadow of a red cent despite repeated promises by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Dairy processors have been treated to the same worrisome silence by the Liberals, who boast about defending supply management, but only talk about it when an election is on the horizon. We may hear about it because we have a minority government and there could be an election sooner than we think. Again, the Liberals take an interest in dairy producers only when there is an election.

Did I take the time to talk about the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico? That is the most recent trade agreement where the Liberals caved on supply management. Has anyone heard the Liberal government talking about a compensation plan? Have we heard anything about the full compensation promised by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that she mentioned again today in the House? Where is their plan? The plan for the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico simply does not exist because the Liberals are incapable of keeping their promises.

The Liberals are all talk and no action. We cannot trust them. At minimum, farmers should be able to get answers from the government to ensure the economic viability of their farms. That is the top priority for helping them to get through the pandemic.

I would like to end with a quote from the chair of the Producteurs de lait du Québec, who aptly described farmers' immediate needs. He said:

We should not have to fight this battle over again every year to obtain compensation that was already announced! Our farms also have to budget and need to know whether they can count on the money that was promised to them for the next seven years.

The Liberals are incapable of keeping their promises, but the Conservatives will keep their promises to supply-managed farmers.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to talk about Canada's supply management system and to support a bill that will prevent the government from further undermining the agricultural sector during free trade agreement negotiations.

Supply management is very important to a number of agricultural sectors in Canada. It ensures a decent income for farmers and fair prices for consumers. It is part of a vision for a more co-operative economy.

Supply management is also part of the NDP way of thinking. A long time ago, the NDP's predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, included individuals such as Thérèse Casgrain. More recently, former MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau was a staunch defender of the supply management sector, specifically dairy production.

The agricultural sector is a very important sector, but the Canadian government has sold it out repeatedly during international trade agreement negotiations. It happened with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and Europe, or CETA, and again with the recent Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

The markets in other countries, and especially the dairy market in the United States, are very competitive. The United States would like to see us adopt their dairy market. As a result of all of the concessions that the Canadian government made while negotiating free trade agreements, our industry has been getting more similar to the U.S. market.

Dairy farmers in the U.S. are currently in crisis, and some of them are taking their own lives because their farms are no longer profitable. This is not because they cannot produce enough, but because they produce too much. The economic model would have them produce more and more and try to develop export markets, but that model does not work.

Some Canadian dairy farmers own businesses that are smaller than those in the United States. They have a stable, decent income. They produce all of the dairy products that Canadians need. This system works very well.

The supply management industry is under attack for essentially ideological reasons. The supply management system is important, and we must do more.

Canadian governments of all stripes have consistently failed to properly protect the supply management system.

What can we do?

The government does not give Parliament much space or much of a role in these negotiation processes. We saw this with CUSMA, and we are now seeing it again with the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada. Parliament often does not get to see the text of these free trade agreements before they are signed. By then, there is very little time left to debate the bill before the components of the agreement are implemented.

When could Parliament have an influence on the negotiating process? It has not been for lack of trying in the past. In five years, I have seen several members ask questions about this issue while negotiations were under way. Once the agreement is signed and provided to Parliament, parliamentarians and Canadians, it is too late, and that is when we see that concessions have been made in the supply-managed sectors.

I think that Bill C-216 is important for defending not only supply management, but also the concept, which I strongly support, that Parliament needs to be more involved in the negotiation process.

I heard my Conservative colleague say that he did not like this bill because if the issue of supply management were put on the table, our free trade partners might target these sectors more. However, I do not think that we can defend supply management by ignoring it. That does not seem to me to be an effective strategy, and it does not inspire much confidence.

If Parliament wants to focus on the supply-managed sectors and do everything it can to defend supply management, given that we have a government that regularly makes promises about supply management and then does not keep them, this bill will allow us to truly say that Parliament supports supply management.

I will once again thank my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel for introducing this bill. As I said at the beginning, I am very pleased and proud to support Bill C-216.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I must inform him that he has approximately six minutes remaining before the end of the time provided for private members' business. He will have his remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is already a challenge for me to not go over my allotted time. I will try to give my speech in six minutes, knowing that I will have the remaining four minutes another day.

I am going to address everyone. This is the moment of truth. This is the time for action. We are sick of the old promises and old policies. Today, a promise was made to defend supply management. However, the promise was made by members of the political party that made the first concessions, so I have a hard time believing them.

I want my speech to unite people. We need to listen to the farmers who are on the ground, much like we should be listening to members when they are giving speeches. The president of the Union des producteurs agricoles made a public statement this morning, calling on all parties in the House to adopt this bill, because farmers are tired of promises.

On November 18, the chair of the Producteurs de lait du Québec issued a press release. It was not a partisan message urging people to vote for the Bloc Québécois. It simply encouraged members to vote in favour of this fundamental and necessary bill. We do not want to hear that laws can be amended. Come on. We just voted on a bill on training for judges. No one pointed out that a future government could repeal that act. We passed it, and we are moving forward.

Passing legislation would give us uniquely effective ways of protecting the industry. We want concrete action. I may seem angry, but that anger is justified because it is on behalf of farmers and processors. These people are waiting.

As mentioned earlier, we are not just talking about breaches in supply management. In the most recent agreement, the government went so far as to limit our exports to other countries, countries that are not even part of the agreement. That makes no sense whatsoever. What is the next step? This request to limit exports of milk proteins was made because of class 7. The Americans wanted to limit our exports to other countries because of the existence of class 7.

The Government of Canada caved on both fronts. Not only did we lose class 7, but we now have export limits imposed on us. Furthermore, it is unbelievable that the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, came into effect on July 1 rather than August 1 like it was supposed to, according to all of the commitments that had been made. It is shameful that we have gotten to this point.

Pierre Falardeau said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you 'sir'.” In the latest negotiations, the Canadian government chose to lie down. That is a problem. It is time to stand up. We will help the government with this bill. The solution is right here. This is the moment of truth. When the time comes to vote on Bill C-216, we will know who truly stands up for agriculture. This is what the sector wants. People need it. A total of 18% of the dairy market is being given up. For other sectors, it is between 7% and 10%. That is huge. Nobody is keeping promises.

This evening, the Liberals are telling us that we must vote for them, that they are not interested in this legislation, that they will deal with the supply management issue and that they will defend it. How can anyone stand for that yet again? That means nothing to farmers, which is why they are ending their silence today, speaking out about a bill and calling on all parties here to set partisanship aside and work together. Supply management is the lifeblood of our regions. It keeps our rural communities alive.

When we talk about supply management, we often think of farmers. Some might say they have an advantage, because there are quotas. No food is wasted most of the time. Of course, there was a small crisis this year under exceptional circumstances. Still, the supply management system has proven its effectiveness, since farmers were able to adjust very quickly. Unlike most other sectors of the economy, they did not ask the government for any assistance. All they want is the compensation that they were promised but that has not been delivered.

How can we trust a government that tells us not to worry, that it will compensate us, but that has yet to pay out one red cent two years on? The government has delivered only one cheque out of eight in the dairy sector. It has given nothing to egg farmers, nothing to poultry farmers, and nothing to processors. The amounts were determined over a year ago, but nothing is happening. By providing legislative protection for supply management, we are forcing future governments to show some backbone. That is the solution.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, the time has expired. I normally indicate how much time is left.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to deliver a speech and follow a written text when so many people are speaking very loudly all around. I have been wanting to say that for a long time. This is a sensitive topic, and that made it even more difficult.

I think this is an important cause, and the fact that people are chatting while we are having this debate speaks to what the other parties really think. I wonder about the lack of respect this shows not just to MPs, but also to the farmers. I just wanted to draw that to the attention of my esteemed colleagues.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I understand what my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, is saying. He is absolutely right. When an hon. member has the floor, he is the only one allowed to speak. I would appreciate it if the other members recognized this reality in the House.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé will have four minutes to conclude his speech when the House resumes debate on this topic.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Official Languages

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I am speaking about a very important subject that I raised during oral question period a while ago.

During the pandemic, we realized that Canadians with very specific needs were struggling to get answers in French from various departments. French also seems to have been dropped at meetings, and that is a serious problem.

We have gotten all kinds of reports showing that during the crisis, it became harder and harder for francophones to receive answers in French and for anglophones in minority situations to receive clear answers in their language.

That is a very serious problem. We informed the President of the Treasury Board and asked him for answers about this. Unfortunately, the answers I was given during oral question period were very vague.

This leads me to a hot topic in the media, namely the importance of the French language for Quebec and, in particular, the position of the Liberal Party of Canada and its members on the notion that French is declining in Quebec.

In a couple of days, we will have an opportunity to hold a very important debate on the decline of French in Montreal. Anyone who has had the opportunity to go to Montreal in recent months—perhaps a little less often in recent weeks because of the pandemic—can attest to how much rarer it is to be addressed in French in the great city of Montreal. It is important for us to recognize this.

We have just one important question for the government and that is the following: Will we get its bill to improve the Official Languages Act before Christmas, yes or no? That is what I asked in oral question period, and I hope that tonight I will finally get the final, clear answer that, yes, the Liberals will introduce their bill before the holidays.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.

For our government, our two official languages are the greatest expression of our values as a country, our values of collaboration, openness and respect.

It is precisely because of this central role of French and English in our common identity that our government has always taken the necessary measures to support our communities. It is also for these reasons that we have committed to modernizing and strengthening the Official Languages Act so that it may better serve Canadians.

I would remind my colleague that we made historic investments in official languages through our action plan for official languages 2018-2023 entitled “Investing in Our Future”. We revised the official languages regulations that govern the delivery of federal services in order to better serve Canadians in the official language of their choice. We also brought back the long form census and added linguistic questions to the 2021 census that will help better enumerate those who are entitled to an education in the minority language.

Our commitment to better serve Canadians in the official language of their choice has been crystal clear since 2015. We showed this commitment by making it a priority to review the official languages regulations governing the Government of Canada’s communications with and services to the public. In doing so, we created the ideal conditions to better serve Canadians in the language of their choice. In the early days of this pandemic, we made sure that critical information was available to Canadians in the official language of their choice, and we are continuing to do so.

We have addressed every situation that could impede information on issues affecting the health of Canadians, and we have taken swift action to support the arts and culture sectors so that our organizations in linguistic minority communities do not suffer too much in this pandemic.

We have received broad support for the assistance we have provided, which even the Commissioner of Official Languages has acknowledged. I might add that, thanks to this emergency support fund for arts and culture, about $10 million has been directly invested in nearly 500 organizations in official language minority communities.

We agree with the Commissioner of Official Languages. The COVID-19 crisis has shown the importance of communication with the public and the delivery of services to Canadians. That is precisely why we are investing heavily to train our public servants, amend our laws, create the right conditions to support the health and vitality of our official language communities and support official language learning.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her answer.

The Liberals are prepared to amend laws and do a lot of things. Are they prepared to recognize that the Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada made a mistake when she said that Bill 101 was oppressive? Are all members from Quebec prepared to say that the member for Saint-Laurent went too far, that she never should have said what she did, and that she is completely out of touch with the reality of the French language in Quebec? As a way for the government to recognize all that, to recognize the mistakes that were made and to make amends, we are asking for one thing and that is that a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act be introduced before Christmas.

My question is simple. Will the government do that, yes or no?