Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act, March 9th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, there are many examples. I gather from my colleague's question that we are not just talking about the issue of trade and free trade, but about things in general. We know that the government does not like committees that study its role. We saw this with several proposals where parliamentarians were to closely examine COVID-19 spending.

The government had to spend in the context of COVID-19, but we are retroactively entitled to have a very high standard of transparency, especially in light of certain matters such as the WE Charity or the respirator scandals, and when contracts or spending of that magnitude are involved. It is understood that the opposition has a duty to show good faith in a crisis. That also applies to the government, which must open its books.

[Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act, March 9th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am rising as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade.

As we have said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-18 on the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement, but not enthusiastically so. Our position is and always has been clear. We support trade openness, which is necessary for our SMEs, and we support market diversification. Given our history, it is particularly interesting for us to see that it is possible for a country that is becoming independent or regaining its independence and trade sovereignty, like the United Kingdom is after Brexit, to quickly reproduce the agreements that were previously signed by the large bargaining group it is leaving.

Of course, the new country then has to renegotiate the agreements on a more permanent basis, but there is no black hole. There is no period of limbo when the newly independent country has no trade partners or international agreements. As Quebec separatists, we find this quite interesting, and we are taking notes. We have taken notes about this process, and we will be ready to address the issues and dispel the fears that Parliament is sure to raise next time Quebec's future is up for discussion.

We are in favour of open trade, but we will never give free trade our complacent and unconditional support if it compromises our agricultural model, harms the environment, supports the privatization of public services or makes it harder for our businesses to get contracts, nor will we support agreements that could undermine sovereignty and democracy for the benefit of profit-driven multinationals.

If we look at the Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement, or CUKTCA, it looks like the worst was avoided. Supply management has not been chipped away at, thank goodness. Sadly, that job had already been done with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, or CETA.

In the end, this agreement is not particularly bold, but it does allow us to maintain access in the short term. I say “short term” because this agreement is supposed to be transitional. Let us not forget that we must reach a permanent agreement later.

When we talk about free trade, it always sounds very abstract, but in reality, at the grass roots level, it ends up feeling quite concrete. This bill is very likely to pass in the next few hours, and there is nothing stopping us from looking ahead now.

There is something frustrating about this kind of process. It has to do with the fact that we, as parliamentarians, always end up rubber stamping an agreement as it is presented to us. The text is there, here it is, there is nothing more to say. We are never consulted beforehand, when we should be consulted before the negotiators even go to negotiate. We should be able to give them mandates. We are parliamentarians; we are here to represent the positions of our constituents. We should be consulted far more often. We should be given reports at different stages of the negotiations. Unfortunately, we do not get any of that.

That is why one of the first things we need to do right now is demand more transparency. The provinces and parliamentarians need to be more involved in future discussions. The elected members of the House of Commons are responsible for protecting the interests and values of their constituents. They are not just here to rubber-stamp agreements that have been negotiated in secret. We are not just puppets.

Between 2000 and 2004, the Bloc Québécois introduced a number of bills on this matter in the House. With the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP came to an agreement on sharing more information with elected members. The Deputy Prime Minister made a commitment at the time. Unfortunately, although this seemed like a step in the right direction, the government asked us before Christmas to study the agreement with the United Kingdom without letting us see the agreement itself. We heard from witnesses like the Minister of International Trade, but we could not read the agreement.

That was when we needed it. Can members imagine how ludicrous and absurd this was? The Standing Committee on International Trade had to study this agreement without having a copy of the text. I do not think members realize the absurdity of it all.

As parliamentarians, we must be kept informed at every step of the process, even before the negotiator steps on a plane or prepares for the virtual meeting. This would prevent parliamentarians from having to speak to an agreement without having the information needed to make a well-thought-out decision. The negotiations would be more transparent.

With regard to the provinces, members will recall that during the negotiations with Europe, which led to the ratification of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement in 2017, Quebec was able to send a representative when talks were held. However, Quebec was not invited to attend by Canada, but rather it was invited by Europe, as the European Union had to go through the parliaments of its member states and therefore requested that the Canadian provinces be present.

The Canada-United Kingdom trade continuity agreement contains elements that the Quebec representative fought for. As a result, under the grandfather clause, the Société de transport de Montréal has a local content requirement of 25% in the procurement of railcars, buses and so on.

That is a step backward from what we had before the agreement with Europe, but we can still say that we managed to salvage something in this new agreement with the United Kingdom. That did not happen because Canada fought for it, but because it was copied and pasted from CETA. That will be obvious when there is a permanent agreement, which is one more reason why the provinces and parliamentarians should come to an agreement before the negotiations in order to be able to give the negotiators clear mandates.

Quebec and the provinces can officially refuse to apply an agreement on their territory. We are taking a strong stand on extending Quebec's jurisdictions beyond its borders, something that the Privy Council in London acknowledged decades ago in a decision that led to the adoption of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, which is very important in Quebec.

In the end, independence is the only way we will be able to advocate for ourselves on the world stage. The Canadian negotiator will always be predisposed to protect Canada's interests at the expense of Quebec's. Until then, we have to do whatever we can to have our voice heard.

It is time for Parliament to look at procedures to give elected members more control over agreements. We have no choice. The minister responsible for ratifying an agreement should be required to table in Parliament an explanatory memorandum and provide a reasonable time frame for obtaining the approval of parliamentarians before any ratification. This should be the bare minimum in the Parliament of a so-called democratic country. This should go without saying.

Let us also talk about what we might anticipate. I gave the example of awarding contracts and there has been much talk of buying local since the beginning of this pandemic. Fortunately, supply management currently remains protected, but we know that the United Kingdom would like to export more cheese. We dodged a bullet for now, but the permanent agreement could be worse and cause us problems in the future. I would say that is why we must adopt Bill C-216, which protects supply management and our agriculture model in its entirety. It would spare us from any new bad surprises. Our dairy, poultry and egg farmers have given enough. Enough is enough.

Another very important element, and this is one of the reasons we support the bill, is the infamous investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which will not apply for at least another two years. In fact, it may not come into effect in two years if there is no agreement within the EU.

Let us imagine a political fiction scenario. Imagine those two years have gone by and there is an agreement with the European countries, that kind of mechanism is in place, and there is no further discussion about a permanent agreement. The parties would have to use something such as an exchange of letters for it to apply. Furthermore, this cannot be part of any future agreement. Most fortunately, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement eliminated that possibility.

This is a very serious issue. Chapter 11 of the 1994 NAFTA included protection of foreign investors in a given state and enabled those investors, if expropriated, or the victims of what is known as the equivalent of an expropriation, to sue the state in an arbitration tribunal created for this purpose.

On paper, this seems to make sense. When a company invests money somewhere, it obviously does not want to fall victim to the policies of the local government. However, when we look at what it means in concrete terms, we realize that what is in there is extremely serious. There is a real risk of applying the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism to all rules or laws of an economic nature that could be detrimental to private profit. Could this open the door to the potential dismantling of national policies? It is certainly becoming increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues related to social justice, the environment, working conditions and public health, for example. If a given transnational corporation believes it has been hampered in its ability to make a profit, it will have recourse. My colleagues may be wondering exactly what that means. First of all, I would point out that trade litigation generally take a long time and is therefore extremely lucrative for law firms. A document from two non-governmental organizations has already demonstrated how eager large firms specializing in trade law are to engage in complex litigation.

Over the past few years, fewer multilateral agreements have been signed, but this does not change the fact that there are more than 3,000 bilateral investment protection treaties in the world. I will give one example and I will again be asked what this means in concrete terms. I will give a list of the trade actions against states resulting from these mechanisms. It is chilling.

In 1997, Canada decided to restrict the import and distribution of MMT, a fuel additive, which was believed to be toxic. Ethyl Corporation filed a suit against the Canadian government for an apology and $201 million.

In 1998, S.D. Myers Inc. filed a complaint against Canada concerning the ban on exporting waste containing PCBs between 1995 and 1997. PCBs are synthetic chemical products that are extremely toxic and used in electrical equipment. Canada lost before the tribunal established under NAFTA.

In 2004, under NAFTA, Cargill, a producer of carbonated soft drinks, won $90.7 million U.S. from Mexico, which was convicted of creating a tax on certain soft drinks that caused a serious obesity epidemic in the country.

In 2008, Dow AgroSciences filed a complaint after Quebec took steps to prohibit the sale and use of certain pesticides on lawns. The case was settled amicably once Quebec, which wanted to put an end to the challenge, agreed to acknowledge that the products posed no risk as long as users read the label.

There are many other examples. In 2009, the Pacific Rim Mining Corporation sued El Salvador for the loss of potential profits. El Salvador had refused to issue a permit for a gold mine because the company was not complying with national standards. El Salvador finally won the case in 2016. At least the government won, but the plaintiff only paid two-thirds of the defence's legal fees. El Salvador is obviously not rolling in money. The $4 million U.S. that this struggling country lost could have gone towards social programs.

In 2010, AbitibiBowater closed some of its facilities in Newfoundland and laid off hundreds of employees. The provincial government responded by taking over its hydroelectric assets. AbitibiBowater did not accept that and filed suit. To avoid a lengthy legal battle, Ottawa offered the company $130 million. There was an amicable agreement with a cheque on the way out.

In AbitibiBowater there is the name Abitibi. Abitibi is in Quebec, which unfortunately is still part of Canada. Considering that its headquarters are in Montreal, how is it a foreign investor?

This goes to show all the schemes that are at play. The company is registered in Delaware, a tax haven, in order to present itself as a foreign investor.

Let us look at other examples. In 2010, Tampa Electric got $25 million from Guatemala, which passed legislation to put a cap on electricity rates. The complaint, which dated to the previous year, was made under the Central America free trade agreement. In 2012, the Veolia group went after Egypt because of that country's decision to increase the minimum wage.

There are many other examples, but it would take a long time to list them all. The most recent case dates back to 2013, when Lone Pine Resources announced its intention to sue Ottawa because of Quebec's moratorium on drilling in the St. Lawrence.

It all goes to show that the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism allows democracy to be hijacked by powerful multinationals whose only goal is to make a profit.

As I was saying earlier, it is important to note that many companies were suing their own country, when there was a way to register or incorporate elsewhere. Fortunately, the transnational corporations did not always win these cases, but they continue to multiply. States must provide the financial and technical resources to defend themselves. This mechanism is one-sided. The government is always the defendant, while the multinational corporation is always the plaintiff.

According to a 2013 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 42% of the cases were decided in favour of the state and 31% in favour of the business. The rest were settled out of court. That means that the plaintiffs were able to fully or partially rebuff the states' political and democratic will in 60% of cases.

These numbers are enormous, but they do not reveal an unquantifiable factor: the permanent pressure of this mechanism on states. Public policy-makers are censoring themselves. Behind departmental doors, they are deciding not to apply such-and-such a policy because they do not want to be sued. This pressure and self-censorship is real. A 2014 report by the Directorate-General for External Policies of the European Union said this clearly served as a deterrent during policy decision-making.

I will give an example. In 2012, Australia imposed plain packaging for cigarette packs, banning the use of logos. The tobacco company Philip Morris International, which had also sued Uruguay in 2010 for its tobacco policies, sued the Australian government based on a treaty between Hong Kong and Australia. As that was going on, New Zealand decided to suspend the coming into force of its plain packaging policy, and the United Kingdom decided to postpone the debate that was supposed to begin on the matter. As we can see, there is an atmosphere of self-censorship. France waited three years before implementing this policy within its borders.

Multinational corporations are sometimes more powerful than governments, and if the will of the people, or even their safety, might affect profits, the people are pushed aside. This is extremely serious. Especially in these pandemic times, we do not need this mechanism in future agreements. If it does not apply in the short term in the agreement with the United Kingdom, that is even better. We will do everything we can to ensure that it never applies. We demand that Canada oppose it in future negotiations with the United Kingdom for the permanent agreement.

[Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, March 9th, 2021]

In that case, I will finish up by just repeating my message. Let us pass Bill C-216. It is time to walk the talk. Farmers are sick of hearing governments promise that, unlike their predecessors, they will not touch supply management. They are sick of being told not to worry.

That door needs to be shut, because farmers have sacrificed enough and the supply management system cannot take any more damage. The boat is sinking, and this has to stop.

[Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, March 9th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today and to speak to this very important bill. I am rising today both as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade and the member for what is likely the most agricultural riding in the country.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been promoting buying local. We have been realizing the importance of producing and consuming local. That guarantees economic benefits, jobs and quality products, and it enables us to express our solidarity with and appreciation for our artisans.

Supply management is the basis of Quebec's agricultural model. It is a tool for preserving our food self-sufficiency and guaranteeing land use. It is a program that is based on a number of interdependent mechanisms. If one pillar is weakened or disappears, it disrupts the system, which becomes less effective overall. One of the pillars is border protection. That is likely the most important pillar of the supply management system because it helps protect our market from foreign products that are quite often subsidized and cost less to produce.

The idea behind supply management, which has many obvious benefits, is that agriculture cannot be treated as just one of many markets under the conventional rules of international trade.

After the Second World War, this was made clear in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, better known as GATT. This was the beginning of international trade liberalization. Agriculture was off the table in those discussions. It was explicitly excluded. They said that the sector would not be treated in the same way as other markets. Agriculture puts our food on the table. It is what feeds us at breakfast, lunch and supper.

Over the years, successive Canadian governments, no matter their political stripe, have passed the buck, promising to never touch supply management in any future free trade agreement negotiations. Each government said it would not touch it, unlike its predecessor. They said that one's word is one's bond, even though others had said the same thing before. These were in fact just empty words.

In the case of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and Europe and the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, we learned at the end of closed-door negotiations—which I would even describe as secretive—that supply management had not come out unscathed.

Our borders were compromised. Free trade agreements forced Ottawa to allow more imported products onto store shelves and substantially reduced penalties levied on countries that exceeded the limits. Canada lost the tools that enabled it to protect our markets from competition.

They said it would be a tiny little opening. They told us not to worry. They tried to reassure us by saying it would be a tiny little opening. Try telling producers and processors whose losses are mounting daily that the cause of their problems is just a tiny little opening. I am sure everyone will agree that all those so-called tiny little openings add up to a pretty massive hole.

Government after government has tried to make up for these openings with compensation. They told people not to worry because there would be fair compensation. We think there should be compensation and we have applied constant pressure to ensure that farmers who get shortchanged by Ottawa's diplomatic screw-ups get their cheques, of course. The problem is that it takes a very long time to get that compensation, which never really makes up for the holes in what was a proven system.

The Bloc Québécois has moved six motions since 2005 calling on the government to recognize and fully defend the supply management system. Every one of these motions passed, and they passed unanimously, at that. After seeing supply management gouged in each of the last three free trade agreements, we felt it was time to introduce a bill. Promises are not enough. We need legislation to fully protect our agricultural model. We must prevent this system from being undermined in any way in the future. Any minister negotiating a future trade agreement must be mandated to keep the supply management system as is. That is why we introduced this bill to prohibit any future breaches of supply management in any potential free trade negotiations. Members must support this bill. The Bloc Québécois and the Union des producteurs agricoles held a national press conference in November calling on everyone to do just that.

That was the message that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I delivered last week, when we did our tour, virtually of course, of all the regions of Quebec. That was also the message of the letter sent by the Union des producteurs agricoles to all the party leaders in the House. Farmers and processors are clear that we must pass this bill. When I vote on this bill I will be thinking about the people in my riding and throughout Quebec.

Since every party has already voted to protect supply management, we have to wonder why some are now refusing to support Bill C-216, which would do exactly the same thing. The parties are all in favour so they should all vote for the bill. The answer is very simple: Canada's two major parties, which like to pass the buck and rightly blame each other for betraying our agriculture sector, want, once they are in power, to keep the door open to negotiating and putting supply management on the table if an interesting opportunity presents itself in another sector.

Last week, a Conservative member from Quebec confirmed his party's so-called clear support for supply management. He said they were 100% behind it while stating that they should not be forced to support it if, in future, there would be opportunities for growth. That is revealing. I like it when things are clear. Yes, they stand up for supply management, but above all they are not obligated to defend supply management. The reason my colleague gave for rejecting our bill is the main reason why we should support it. Oral commitments are no longer enough.

As we heard during this debate, some people think that the bill is unconstitutional. That argument does not hold water. We, too, closely examined that aspect, and we believe that the bill passes the test. We could discuss that.

Furthermore, we are not talking here about the final passage of the bill but about passing the bill in principle. Once the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which I have the honour and pleasure of being a member, we will study it and hear from witnesses, experts and groups affected by it. We will also have the opportunity to amend it if there is something wrong with it. We could therefore hear from constitutional law experts and, if necessary, change the few lines that need to be changed to ensure this bill is more compliant with the Constitution. In short, there is absolutely nothing to warrant a negative vote in the House at this stage.

Let us pass the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-216. The dismantling of our agricultural model needs to stop. The future of our rural economy is at stake.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[Luc Cordeau, March 9th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Luc Cordeau, who was devoted to preserving and enhancing the heritage and traditions of Saint-Hyacinthe. He passed away on February 23.

Born in Saint-Pie in 1959, Luc Cordeau was involved with the regional historical society for 36 years and served as archivist and executive director of the Centre d'histoire de Sainte-Hyacinthe.

His family describes him as a living library and meticulous perfectionist who never overlooked the slightest detail and valued hard evidence over gossip. Once he got going on the subject of history, it was hard to stop him.

Shortly before his death, Luc Cordeau said, “I am extremely passionate about researching our local and regional history. I love it when my research turns up people whose names have been forgotten but who did a lot for their communities.”

The people of Sainte-Hyacinthe will never forget his name.

Thank you, Luc Cordeau.

[Health of Animals Act, February 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate virtually in today's debate on Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

If I may, I would like to go back to a sad event that occurred in my riding just under a year and a half ago.

On December 7, 2019, 13 vegan and animal rights activists broke into a pig farm in Saint-Hyacinthe to protest the raising of animals for human consumption. They entered a hog barn, where they filmed a staged protest for nearly seven hours, sitting on the floor in front of the pigpens. Several Sûreté du Québec officers then had to enter the building to get them out. The site was contaminated by approximately 30 people who should never have been there in the first place.

During a press conference in January 2020, the co-owners of the pig farm in question said that since the incident, they had noticed clinical signs of a new disease. An analysis showed that it was rotavirus. This disease of the small intestine was not a new disease, but it had not been seen in 40 years. Furthermore, rotavirus is not the only disease that can affect pigs. Pigs are extremely sensitive to stress. When they are in captivity, their environment has to be controlled, in terms of both temperature and noise levels.

During the occupation of the farm, the sows got up suddenly, and when they lay back down, they crushed some of the piglets to death. What is more, the activists put water in the generator's diesel tank, throwing off the temperature. They also left the barn doors open when it was -12°C out.

That happened in my riding, but it was not the only incident of its kind. An intrusion like this can have major consequences on farm biosecurity. The health and well-being of the very animals on whose behalf these people are protesting are at serious risk. In addition to the harm caused to the animals and the financial consequences, many farmers told me that after this incident, they were constantly afraid it would happen again. Unfortunately, these protests are becoming increasingly common.

After this incident, the Union des producteurs agricoles obtained an emergency injunction against the protest group, preventing it from coming within 500 metres of a farm without the owner's permission. Naturally, if they have the owner's permission, they can approach the farm.

The 12 members of the group Direct Action Everywhere faced two charges, namely breaking and entering with intent to commit mischief and obstructing a police officer. The other protester, a minor, had to appear in youth court.

Even though the matter is before the courts, the harassment has not stopped. Just recently, the farm owners I talked to this week were the target of people's ire on social media. They have had to stop answering the phone to avoid the invective. They are not the only ones in this situation.

People realized that, unfortunately, the law is not good enough. That is why we are discussing Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act. This is a very simple bill that makes it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.

We support the bill at this stage. This is not about opposing freedom of expression, or people's right to express themselves and protest, or vegan values. Each and every one of us is free to embrace such values and to share them or not. That is not the issue. However, we can by no means allow illegal actions that hurt both farmers and animals.

It is important to mention that animal welfare is an integral part of Quebec's agricultural model, which is based on family farms, not factory farms where animals spend their whole lives never seeing so much as a blade of grass. That is not how we operate.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade and the member for what is likely the most agricultural riding in the country, I often get the chance to talk to farmers about their concerns over meat imports competing with their products. Animal welfare is one of their considerations because their competitors have much lower production costs, not least because their animal welfare standards are much lower. This leads them to seek greater reciprocity of standards, while ours are among the best in the world. Lastly, farmers are calling for improved animal welfare standards around the world.

For example, duck farmers recently voiced their dissatisfaction with the European standards, which are less strict than ours and promote what I would not hesitate to describe as unfair competition. Poultry farmers are also concerned about what might end up on our supermarket shelves from Mercosur countries. Incidentally, poultry farmers get their workers to sign a farm welfare awareness form.

In addition, dairy farmers adopted a code of practice for the care and handling of dairy cattle, in co-operation with scientists and veterinarians. This code sets standards with respect to living conditions, feeding, health care and transportation for the animals.

There is also the proAction certification program, which has been around since 2017. This program provides a way to properly assess all these factors. I am sure some people are thinking that dairy farmers must not have been happy to have a certification program forced on them and to be under the microscope. On the contrary, this program was not forced on dairy farmers. They did not go along with it reluctantly. They took the initiative and asked for it. A well-treated cow produces better-quality milk. A study has shown that when cows are pampered and brushed, they can produce up to one kilogram of additional milk per day and are 30% less likely to develop inflammation. Farmers know that it is always beneficial to treat animals well.

The types of farms that I mentioned are just examples, not an exhaustive list. However, let us remember that the activists who are going after Quebec agriculture are missing the mark. Even though things can always be improved and we can always do better, that is not the issue. In many ways, Quebec agriculture is the gold standard. Attacking Quebec agriculture only promotes foreign farming practices that are far more harmful to animals.

To come back to the bill, we support it, but we fear there may be some problems enforcing it. Agriculture and animal welfare are areas of shared jurisdiction. Ottawa has limited power with regard to such a bill's scope of application. That is why it would be good to have more information on the bill's functionality and application. As the Canadian Food Inspection Agency says, the welfare of animals, including livestock, falls mainly under provincial jurisdiction. The CFIA therefore limits its own mandate to regulating the humane transportation of animals and the humane treatment of food animals in federal slaughter establishments.

The Criminal Code of Canada also prohibits anyone from willfully causing animals to suffer from neglect, pain or injury. The Criminal Code is enforced by police services, provincial and territorial societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and provincial and territorial ministries of agriculture. We must proceed with caution because all provinces have animal welfare legislation, but not all provinces have legislation dealing specifically with intrusion. Some provinces and territories have passed legislation or regulations, while others have not. Some provinces, like Alberta and Ontario, have made stricter laws to punish offences and break-ins, but Quebec still does not have a similar law. Quebec is contemplating the issue, and it is not up to Ottawa to impose its laws on the provinces.

However, the whole point of committees is to ask these kinds of questions, and so, we will raise our concerns on the matter in committee.

Action is needed and that is why, in the name of respect for animals, private property laws and producers, we will vote in favour of Bill C-205 at this stage.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the debates between the Liberals and the Conservatives, I often think that they are debates about the how, and while they may be intense, they are rarely about the why or the substance. One could almost say the two parties are one and the same, and call them the Liberal-Conservative party. The two words could be put together, although I would not call it the liberating party, because that is not the case.

Nevertheless, I would like to raise the issue of economic nationalism, which is part of Quebec's DNA. Quebec finds much comfort in the notion of economic nationalism and the idea of having its own institutions that are able to intervene.

How do you perceive this? Is it a purchasing policy or a public contracting policy that gives priority to local companies?

That said, it was a great speech and I thank you.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, we agree with the idea of setting up a committee to take a close look at things and analyze them.

However, we need to think about what the best strategy would be. That is the purpose of committees, to look into such matters.

Of course, our position on oil infrastructure is not the same as that of the official opposition. We understood the intentions behind that part of the motion when we read it. Nevertheless, it is a mandate and a suggestion for a theme. This observation mandate does not oblige us to embrace a particular position, which is why we support today's motion.

We cannot be opposed to the creation of committees that force the government to be accountable and that enable us to examine things more closely.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, since the member generally attends the debates in the House, I think he knows our position, but I can remind him of it.

Our position is this. Supply management should never again be used as a bargaining chip. The Liberals may have introduced supply management, but they have sacrificed it three times. Compensation is all well and good, and we will always fight for it because it is the least the government can do. However, compensation will never replace the breaches in a system that works and that should be promoted. We believe that supply management should simply be taken off the table. It should be non-negotiable.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The short answer is yes. Neo-liberalism is a poison. It is an unfair, ecocidal system that is not even effective. We must absolutely demolish it. We agree on that.

Free trade in itself is quite beneficial to Quebec. We had to reduce our dependence on the Canadian market. However, trade must not be confused with agreements largely favouring multinationals that are against democracy. In other words, we are in favour of free trade, but our support stops if that trade is detrimental to the environment, our workers, social justice or our ability to legislate.

Our answer is yes, any trade decisions must focus on workers.