44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 16, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, this is not a measure that makes life more expensive for Canadians, because we know with the climate action incentive that eight out of 10 families get more back than they pay into this. In my home province of British Columbia it has been something that has been in effect for over a decade. It was brought in by a right-of-centre government at the time, so I completely disagree with that as an affordability measure.
The last thing we want to do is cut off the cheques that people are receiving. When we talk about the families that receive the most relative to what they pay, it is low-income Canadians, so I think that is precisely the last direction we want to be moving in.
Also, there is a very strong rationale for it as we are living in a climate emergency, so this is not the time to be scaling back on our actions with respect to that, because we have seen the very real cost just over the last couple of years. Look at what happened this year in Atlantic Canada, with hurricane Fiona. Last year, in my home province of B.C., the atmospheric rivers caused over $9 billion in damage. Climate change is real, and we need to make sure we are all playing our part in addressing it.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the fall economic statement, which was presented last week.
For the past seven long years, the Liberals, with the shameful complicity of the NDP, have succeeded in breaking the spirit and morale of Canadians by making them poorer than they have ever been in the history of our country. When asked if I would like to share my thoughts on the fall economic statement, I did not think twice.
As members of Parliament, we are well positioned to see what is actually happening on the ground, and I wonder why the members opposite do not see how people are suffering, as we do on our side. When the Minister of Finance says that cancelling a Disney+ subscription is a good option to reduce the debt burden and make ends meet at the end of the month, it is clear that the Liberals are totally out of touch with reality.
I will give some examples. When the Liberals came to power in 2015, a litre of gas cost $1. Now, on average, it costs $1.67. This does not even take into account the increases that are expected in the new year, when this Prime Minister raises the carbon tax for a third time.
In 2015, the average price of a house in Canada was close to $300,000. Today, the average price of a house is over $746,000. This is 40% more expensive than in the United States. The Prime Minister has said he does not think about monetary policy all that much, and I have a feeling the Minister of Finance does not either. The economic update released by the Liberal-NDP coalition does not address the cost of living crisis created by government spending, which is out of control. The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits have driven up the price of groceries, gas and home heating. Canadians have never paid more in taxes than under this Prime Minister.
To reduce the cost of living in Canada, the Conservatives had two clear requirements. It was not complicated. First, we implored the government to not create any new taxes. We asked it to cancel all planned tax hikes and to not triple the carbon tax. Second, we warned the Liberals that they had to stop all new spending or ensure that any new spending was matched dollar for dollar in savings. In other words, to spend a dollar, they would have to save a dollar. What was so complicated about the Conservative Party's requests for this economic update? Nothing, it was just common sense.
I cannot show the document that I have with me, but we saw in this economic update that none of the Conservative Party's demands were met. For that reason, we cannot support this inflationary update.
The Liberals claim that they had no other choice than to double the debt. They have accumulated more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. Let us recall the 2015 election campaign. The Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Liberal Party, said that the Liberals would have a small deficit of $10 billion the first year in office and another the second year. After that, they would balance the budget. They promised to make massive investments in the country's infrastructure.
It was a good marketing strategy. They promised to run up a deficit to invest money, and people thought that it might not be such a crazy idea. We all saw what happened. After their first four years in office, they had accumulated $100 billion in additional debt and no major infrastructure project had gotten off the ground in Canada. We fell for it from the beginning.
Then, the Prime Minister tried to make us believe that all of the spending in the past two years was related to the pandemic. However, today, we know that 40% of the new measures were not. We are talking about $205 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study that showed that $300 billion of the $500 billion was used to implement pandemic-related measures. There again, we could look into all of that spending because there was no reason for some of it. Regardless, we know that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment, $205 billion in spending had nothing to do with the pandemic. What is worse, we do not know what that money was used for. Half a trillion dollars was spent in two years on top of the government's usual spending.
How did we get into this mess? The inflation rate is so insanely high that interest rates had to be pushed up to control it. Meanwhile, ordinary people are being bled dry.
Additional costs are related to things such as houses and mortgages. People with variable mortgages get hit first. Every time the interest rate rises, their mortgage interest rate goes up. The principal does not change, but the interest rate jumps.
People who have to renew their mortgage these days will have to pay an average of $7,000 more in interest per year for an average family. That is a chunk of change.
Our friends across the way used to love talking about how they were working for the middle class and the people who wanted to be part of it. What we have seen in recent years is the opposite of that. They have made the middle class poorer, not richer, and people are ending up in financial trouble.
The Bank of Canada announced that it had no choice but to raise the interest rate in an attempt to fight inflation driven by inflationary measures. That will make things even worse for people.
There was nothing in the fall economic update suggesting the government plans to do anything to keep all that under control. The only thing on the agenda is taxes, taxes and more taxes. We have been talking about the carbon tax for two months now.
Yesterday, I was pleased to see a report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which polled businesses across the country. One of the main conclusions is that the businesses confirm that the carbon tax is a major problem for transportation. All the costs associated with that are causing prices to go up and the consumer is left paying the bill. The CFIB is asking on behalf of its members to not increase the carbon tax. The Conservative Party is not making this up. Businesses across the country are saying that this absurd and that it needs to stop.
I am not even talking about food banks. Last month, there were 1.5 million visits to the country's food banks in just one month. That is a record number of food bank visits in the history of Canada.
I have endless examples, but the main thing I want people to remember from my remarks today is that ultimately, this economic update, which is about 100 pages long, simply repeats measures that were voted on last fall. There is nothing really new here. The Conservative Party's simple demands, which we know were backed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, were not considered. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessments confirm what we are saying.
We are not making things up just so we can make speeches and blather on. We are stating economic realities that are easy to understand. Canadians who have to pay the bills at the end of the month understand this full well. They look to their government, which does not seem to get it. People are looking to their MPs and asking them what is going on and what they can do to help the economy make a smart recovery. That is our job.
The Conservatives are in opposition for now, but not for very long. We do not know how much longer we will be in opposition, but as long as we are, we will make sure Canadians know we are asking the right questions and making the right recommendations to the government to build a good, strong economy so that people can get up in the morning feeling happy to go to work and knowing they have enough money to treat themselves once in a while, not wondering if they will have enough money to pay the bills at the end of the month even though they have a job.
There was nothing new in the fall economic update. Nothing has changed, and that is very disappointing.
1431 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think most Canadians, if they understood the position the Conservative Party is taking on the legislation, would be somewhat disappointed.
We are going through some very difficult times, even though, relatively speaking, Canada is doing exceptionally well on the inflation front. Compared with the U.S., Germany, England and many of the European Union countries, Canada is doing well. However, it is not good enough. We believe that Canada could do more at the local level.
The Conservatives say they want us to do more, but they consistently vote against measures that help Canadians, so I have a specific question. Why is the Conservative Party opposed to supporting interest-free relief for students in Canada?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are against it because these are inflationary measures. Even Mark Carney said that Canada's inflation is domestically generated.
As long as we are comparing ourselves to other countries, why not compare ourselves to countries such as Switzerland that do not have inflation?
Should the government copy countries that are not handling things well, that are taking insignificant measures and creating problems? The answer is no. We should do what needs to be done for Canada here in Canada.
If we cannot stop inflationary measures, we will end up in a vicious cycle, with Canadians getting poorer and poorer.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which I listened to carefully.
We understand that the Conservative Party's strategy is to not raise taxes and to reduce investments. I have another solution to suggest to my colleague. The government could make cuts in unnecessary areas. I would start with subsidies to oil and gas companies. As everyone knows, Canada is a world champion in this field, providing financial support totalling $8 billion a year. That is significant.
Second, what does my colleague think of the monarchy, which costs about $60 million a year? That would be another good place to make cuts.
What does he think about abolishing the Senate? In recent years, the cost to operate the Senate has not increased by 5%, 10%, 15% or 20%; it has increased by nearly 40%. People are not elected to the upper chamber. That is archaic. What does my colleague think of that?
It is all well and good to go after taxes, but why not cut spending on completely useless organizations and companies that make billions in profits every quarter, like oil and gas companies?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his many questions.
We definitely need to find savings. Over the past two years, at least $205 billion has been spent on who knows what. Imagine all the auditing that needs to be done.
I do not think that getting out of energy production is a good idea. We would end up buying foreign energy, which we are already doing too much of.
Instead, we should be self-reliant, consume Canadian energy and get organized. Our energy is the greenest in the world. Why consume foreign energy? Why invest in buying energy from other countries, corrupt countries, when we have everything we need here at home?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am wondering what my hon. colleague's views are on the impact of corporate price raising in this country. Does he believe that it is playing any role in the current inflation? Would he agree with the NDP that at a time of windfall corporate profits, it is time to bring in a windfall corporate profits tax?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
There is a balance to everything. There needs to be balance when it comes to taxes, both for individuals and businesses. However, let us not forget that businesses are wealth creators. Without businesses, there are no jobs.
We have to ensure that there is balance and no abuse. We also need to ensure that companies that make a profit reinvest in effective measures to build their business capacity while offering greener solutions for the environment.
Criteria need to be established and put in place. We cannot simply say that businesses are not paying enough taxes. There needs to be a balance. We need to see what we can do to make things better for businesses, individuals and the environment.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Brampton South in favour of the fall economic statement, as tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
The past two years have been challenging for residents in Brampton and for all Canadians. We worked together and Canadians rolled up their sleeves to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, and now the government is focused on supporting Canadians who need it while ensuring inclusive economic growth.
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, this is about building an economy that works for everyone from coast to coast to coast. It is a plan that will set Canada up for success and it is a plan that is balanced, targeted and responsible.
Already, as a country, we have the lowest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, as well as an AAA credit rating. Our economic engine in Canada is strong, but there are challenges on the horizon due to global inflation. This is why we need to take targeted steps. When I talk with parents, families, seniors and youth in my riding, I hear they are grateful that this government is taking targeted action to make sure Canadians in all our communities are supported.
The programs announced in this fall economic statement add to the series of recent announcements over the past months. These supports have already been reaching Canadians, and I want to begin with some perspective that leads us to where we are today. Recently, I was speaking with a single senior who lives in downtown Brampton. She told me about how impactful the increase to the old age security pension has been, as it is giving her greater peace of mind. I met her at an art class supported by the federal government. She also told me that she is looking forward to the eventual rollout of the dental care program, which will cover Canadians who need it.
On that point, I have served proudly on the health committee since 2015. Over the years, we have heard about the importance of dental care. We know many families do not have the means to send their kids to a dentist. In committee, we heard about how 2.2 million school days are missed by children every year because of emergency dental care. This is a smart investment from the federal government that will save thousands of dollars through prevention per patient and will help make sure our kids do not need to endure emergency surgeries.
The actions in the fall economic statement are informed by things we are already seeing on the ground. I also hear about the need for more affordable housing supply, and I am glad this government is recognizing this. Housing density in Brampton is high, with more than 26% of households having five or more people under one roof. In other words, according to the 2021 census, we have hundreds of multi-generational homes in our community. We need to respect and support the choice of families to live together.
The fall economic statement introduces a multi-generational home renovation tax credit. It would provide up to $7,500 in support for constructing a secondary unit for a family member who is a senior or an adult with a disability, starting in January 2023. I know $7,500 will make a big difference for families in Brampton who want to have a grandparent or family member live with them.
This government is also advancing the age well at home initiative, which will help seniors stay in their homes for as long as possible, providing practical assistance for everyday tasks.
Brampton is growing, and we have great economic opportunities, but we need more affordable housing options and an increased supply. I was very grateful to see the launch of the third round of the rapid housing initiative, which will be allocated in Peel. This is in addition to the largest investment ever made for housing in the region of Peel, in 2020, of more than $276 million. It means more affordable units in a region that is experiencing a high demand for new housing. In addition to large systemic investments to our regions and cities, we are also giving tools to Canadian families.
The fall economic statement would also implement the new tax-free first home savings account, which would allow Canadians under 40 to not only save up $40,000 toward their first home, but also withdraw it tax-free. For those most impacted and with income under $35,000, a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program will roll out soon.
This government has made it a priority to make life more affordable by also reducing long-term inflationary pressures. I want to highlight the impact that our policies have been on young families. We see across the country how impactful our investments in child care have been. In some provinces, parents have already seen a decrease of 25% in their fees, and by the end of the year, they will see another 25% decrease, fulfilling our commitment to cut child care fees in half as we work toward $10-per-day child care by 2025. It is saving parents money and also giving them the chance to step into the workforce.
Building on that success, the fall economic statement introduces new measures for recent Canadian graduates. I recently spoke with a university graduate from my youth council who was born and raised in Brampton and who has accessed federal loans. This has already been a beneficial program, but we know Canadian students need additional support. That is why this government is making it easier for students to start their careers without the burden of federal student loan interest.
The fall economic statement includes a commitment to permanently eliminate the federal interest on Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans. This will benefit over one million student loan borrowers and save an average borrower more than $3,000 over the lifetime of their loan. This will make a real difference to support young Canadians and is a great step in addition to increasing the loan repayment threshold from $25,000 to $40,000. I often say that young people are our leaders of today, and we need to make sure they are set up on the path to excel in their bright futures.
Immigration is also a key way to create a strong foundation for economic growth. I was pleased to see new investments for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada that will address backlogs and speed up the processing of applications. These applicants will help fill labour shortages in crucial areas such as health care, manufacturing and the trades. This comes with a much-needed $1.6 billion over six years and $315 million in new, ongoing funding, as well as $50 million to make sure that the department has the resources it needs to facilitate efficient processing.
This government recognizes the importance of attracting newcomers to rural and northern communities to address specific labour shortages in some provinces while providing additional much-needed support to communities with diverse populations such as Brampton. Families in Brampton waiting for their relatives applications to be processed will be pleased with our significant investments to reduce wait times and improve file processing.
Another important measure will be the creation of a new quarterly Canada workers benefit with automatic advance payments. This will be in the form of a refundable tax credit that tops up the earnings of low- and modest-income workers. It will put up to $2,400 in the pockets of low-income families. This will reward and encourage workers for doing essential jobs.
As we know, the backbone of a strong economy is made up of our small and medium-sized businesses. I received an email from a local grocery store earlier this summer that told me that the majority of the payments it processes are digital, with debit or credit cards, and it wants to continue to offer excellent services to its customers. It is a relief for it to hear the fall economic statement will advance efforts to lower credit card transaction fees for small and medium-sized businesses. This is something we have to do for small business owners. They were hit hard by COVID-19.
Finally, this past summer, when the Deputy Prime Minister visited Brampton to meet with workers in the trucking industry, we heard the concerns of some employees about their employment status. Last week the Minister of Labour was in the GTA to update industry members and highlight investments in the fall economic statement that will make sure employees can access their rights and what they are entitled to.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we have debated this subject, we have heard the Liberal government bragging about Canada's AAA credit rating. When one has a credit card, the provider is always looking to increase the credit, and lenders always make money.
I have a couple of points here. Number one is homelessness. The Auditor General just spoke about it and gave a failing grade. I sit on the committee for Veterans Affairs, and it is getting a failing grade as well. Why does the government want to continue processing its way of doing its carbon tax when it is failing the people of Canada?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is a targeted and responsible plan. I want to highlight the fall economic statement is a top-up of measures already taken, it is permanently eliminating interest for federal students, launching the new Canada growth fund and creating a new quarterly Canada workers benefit.
All these benefits are helping Canadians, and this is a fiscal plan that will help Canadians in this difficult time. This is the way we have to move forward.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard my government colleague say that she is proud of this economic update.
I was not proud when I presented this update to my constituents. There are seasonal workers in my riding, and on September 24, the government announced that, in the Lower St. Lawrence area, the number of insurable hours required to qualify for EI would increase from 420 to 700, even though EI benefits are paid for with the premiums deducted from these workers' wages. Obviously, by then, they had run out of time to work more and accumulate enough hours.
We expected that there would at least be something in the economic update to help these workers who are being left behind, despite being promised EI reform since 2015.
I am wondering what my colleague would say on behalf of the government to these seasonal workers in the Lower St. Lawrence area.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government is presently doing consultations to ensure employers and employees have access to a high quality EI system. What we are debating today is the fall economic statement. We have already announced top-ups and support measures that will make a big difference in the lives of Canadians. For example, rental and dental supports, and doubling the GST credit, will all support what Canadians need.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, many economists, including Jim Stanford, have noted that the economic policy that is being used to combat inflation has historically led to a recession. Many economists are actually predicting a recession next year, and it is estimated that as many as 850,000 Canadian workers are at risk of losing their jobs as a result of that policy of quantitative tightening.
What does my hon. colleague say to Canadian workers? What is her view of the Bank of Canada's policy of raising interest rates in an attempt to suppress wages, which will ultimately lead to a recession and many workers losing their jobs? Does she agree with that?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a great advocate in the health committee for his residents, but today I want say to members that this is why the fall economic statement is focused on making life more affordable for workers by increasing the Canada workers benefit with up to $2,400 for low-income families and ensuring truck drivers are protected with the Canada Labour Code. The fall economic statement's benefits are a top-up to programs already going on. There is one other thing I just want to say to members. A AAA credit rating sets Canada in a very good fiscal position.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Canadians are out of money and the fall economic statement shows that the Liberals are out of touch. Almost half of Canadians are $200 or less away from bankruptcy, cannot cover their living expenses this year, cannot save for the future and are cutting back on healthy food. A quarter of Canadian households cannot cover monthly bills and debt repayment.
It is appalling that the Prime Minister doubled Canada’s debt and said that the government “took on debt so Canadians wouldn't have to.” Canadians are now paying the staggering price for his reckless decisions, and he has added more debt than all previous prime ministers in Canadian history combined.
He claims that all the new spending was because of COVID, but over $200 billion of it had nothing to do with COVID. All that spending has created record-high inflation that is driving up the cost of everything, and essentials such as gas, groceries and home heating are almost out of reach. The fall statement does nothing to alleviate these burdens on struggling Canadians. With record debt, record inflation and, as it turns out, record taxes, Canadians pay more taxes now than ever before, and actually pay more in taxes than for food, clothing and shelter combined.
The fall statement shows that the Liberals are going to make things worse and will keep racking up debt to fuel their spending. Of course, they plan to triple the carbon tax too. The fall economic statement is an insult to hard-working Canadians struggling just to get by, never mind trying to actually get ahead.
The Conservatives asked the Liberals to commit to tackling inflation and the skyrocketing cost of living by ensuring they would bring in no new taxes and no new spending. They ignored both and will only fuel the skyrocketing cost of living fire they set.
As is the government's pattern, the fall statement undermines Canada's natural resources sector, which bolsters the entire economy and is a leading contributor to GDP, jobs, government revenue and closing the gap between the wealthy and poor in Canada. While the Prime Minister recently said Russia's attack on Ukraine has accelerated his government's effort to phase out oil and gas, the finance minister recently claimed that Canada is ready to “support our allies with energy security”. She claims it will be easier for businesses to invest in major projects in Canada, but the reality is that the Liberal record is one of deliberate policy uncertainty, unpredictability and added red tape and costs that drive businesses, jobs and money out of Canada.
Oil and gas is Canada’s biggest private sector investor and lead export, even now. However, the NDP-Liberals’ anti-energy agenda has already had stark consequences: 300,000 jobs lost, over $150 billion in energy projects and indigenous partnerships cancelled and four pipelines dead. They would have enabled Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency and would have exported more Canadian energy to the world.
Shockingly, under the Liberals, 25 LNG export projects have been stalled or abandoned, risking 100,000 jobs and $500 billion in new investment. In the same time, the U.S. built seven and approved 20 more, while only one in Canada, with the biggest private sector investment in Canadian history and approved under the former Conservative government, has shovels in the ground. In Germany, a major LNG import facility was just permitted and built in 194 days. They wanted Canadian LNG but cannot get it because of the Liberals. How many times was LNG cited in the fall economic statement? It was zero.
The finance minister talks about accelerating project approvals, but her government has actually done everything it can to slow them down or destroy them completely. She even said that Canada must and will fast-track “the energy and mining projects our allies need to heat their homes and to manufacture electric vehicles.” However, this fall statement actually eliminates incentives for small-scale energy start-ups, picks winners and losers in resource development and would make energy in Canada for Canadians more and more expensive.
The fall statement outlines an incoming 2% tax on buybacks of a company’s own stock. That would harm Canadian investment because it is double the rate of the U.S. It would cause Canadian businesses and investments to continue to move south.
The NDP-Liberals will also get rid of flow-through shares, which are a major source of start-up capital for many oil, gas, and predominantly mining projects. Cancelling them only for oil and gas would hurt small businesses, especially those investing in alternative energy and emissions-reduction technology, because 93% of oil and gas companies in Canada have under 100 employees. They face high costs, high uncertainty, high risk and domestic political hostility, so private investment is already a challenge.
Get this. In 2020, the then natural resources minister expanded flow-through shares to help small companies build stronger supply chains, including for critical minerals. However, this fall economic statement cuts them, so by their own admission, it is jeopardizing supply chains that are already severely compromised.
Liberal claims and policies are incoherent, contradictory and hypocritical. The finance minister's delivery of the fall statement mentioned “critical minerals” five times and she claims they are a priority. They should be a key pillar of Canada's resource future, but so far there is only talk. In reality, critical minerals in Canada such as nickel, lithium and uranium will stay in the ground because mining approvals take several years, duplicate provincial and municipal reviews and can be paused or get new conditions at any time. Canada currently produces no phosphate, a key component in electric car batteries. The Liberals say they want all new vehicle sales to be zero emissions by 2035, but phosphate is not even on Canada’s critical minerals list.
The gap between words and actions is not surprising, though. It is the Liberals' modus operandi on almost everything. Instead of actually fixing the regulatory mess they created, the Liberals drive Canada deeper into debt and announce more tax dollars to fund their broken programs. The fall statement seems to admit it because the Liberals plan to pour $1.28 billion into the various resource regulators.
The Liberals should be ashamed that this is necessary, since Canada was consistently world renowned for decades as the most responsible resource producer with the highest standards and performance and a best-in-class regulatory system by all measures. It was literally the best in the world out of the top ten resource-producing jurisdictions on the planet before the Liberals broke it. The only way the Liberals seem to get companies to pursue new major projects is by bankrolling them with tax dollars. Layers of red tape and duplication and an unclear and arbitrary review process cause investors to seek opportunities outside of Canada.
Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives would remove unnecessary roadblocks and duplication, attract investment and accelerate approvals for resource projects that are crucial to economic and national security, while maintaining the highest global standards. The Conservatives would ensure things can actually get built in this country.
A Conservative government would axe the carbon tax, repeal the anti-energy, anti-business and anti-export bills and get more of Canada’s world-leading environmentally and socially responsible oil, gas and minerals to the world to displace these products from countries with lower environmental, human rights, labour and governance standards.
The Conservatives will put the people first. Instead of government creating cash and making everything more expensive, the Conservatives will make sure Canada creates more of what cash buys: more homes, more gas, more food and more resources here at home—
1308 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 5:55:53 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member will have two minutes and 30 seconds to finish her speech the next time this matter is before the House.
It being 5:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of supply-managed producers. I will present the main reasons why we, as lawmakers, should guarantee our producers a sustainable future by passing Bill C‑282.
I just want to take a moment to thank farmers in the riding of Montcalm who operate 87 supply-managed farms. Over 70% of the riding is agricultural. Its main industry is agriculture and agri-food.
Given that a number of Bloc Québécois motions to protect the integrity of supply management have been adopted unanimously, some members think it would be inconsistent not to pass this bill in principle and refer it to a committee for study. I thank them for that.
It is also a privilege for me to sponsor this bill, which I should note is identical to Bill C‑216. If memory serves, that bill won the support of a significant majority of 250 MPs in the previous Parliament thanks to my colleagues' amazing work.
I want to mention the work done by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, a brilliant and staunch defender of the interests of the agricultural sector. I also salute the contribution of my young and eloquent colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. Not to mention the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who sponsored Bill C‑216 in the last Parliament, a bill that would already be in effect if not for the useless election in August 2021. He is the dean of the House, the one who has seen the flood of good intentions in the ocean of promises to protect supply management.
These promises resulted in irreversible breaches in three major free trade agreements that unfortunately did permanent damage because the supply management system wrongly became a bargaining chip, as Gérard Bérubé wrote in Le Devoir on August 30, 2018:
Canada's supply management system has found itself in the crosshairs many times in the context of free trade and, unfortunately, has become a bargaining chip for Ottawa in the the past three major negotiations. From breach to fault, the crack continues to grow dangerously bigger.
I believe in parliamentary democracy and refuse to become a cynic, although I hold no naive beliefs about the ability of the legislative power to not let itself be subordinate to the executive, especially for those on the government benches.
As MPs, we are representatives of the people and we are legislators. We are the ones who must make the voice of the people heard and defend their interests against an executive power that all too often governs like a supreme ruler and that sometimes breaks its promises and goes against the unanimous will of the House, as expressed in the motions it adopts.
Some might think that Bill C‑282 is not necessary. They will swear, hand on heart, that they will protect supply management from now on. However, history tends to repeat itself, so I would humbly point out, by way of example, that, in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion on February 7, 2018, which said, and I quote: “That the House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.” This motion was unanimously adopted.
A month later, on March 8, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In the context of the renegotiation of NAFTA, the Bloc also moved a motion on September 26, 2017, for the government to protect supply-managed markets. I will read it:
That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.
One month later, on November 30, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing CUSMA, an agreement meant to replace NAFTA. Unfortunately, despite the promise made to Parliament, several concessions were made, putting the financial stability of Quebec's agricultural businesses in jeopardy. Four times the House unanimously expressed its desire to fully protect the supply management system. However, both Liberal and Conservative governments clearly did not feel bound by that commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements.
These agreements have been disastrous when it comes to the concessions that were made at the expense of supply-managed agricultural producers and processors. Without the guarantee that Bill C‑282 offers to exclude supply management from free trade agreements, many are now questioning their future.
Bill C‑282 is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to expand the minister's list of responsibilities to include protecting the supply management system. Section 10 of the act would be amended to add supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canada's external affairs, including international trade. Once this bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to defend supply-managed farmers to our trading partners. It will now be part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without creating loopholes in the system, as has been the case with the last three agreements. Bill C‑282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively. They undermine the integrity of the principles that make up the system: price, production and border controls.
Supply management is an essential strategic tool in preserving our food autonomy, regional development and land use. It is also a pan-Canadian risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations. This system is based on three main principles, on three pillars.
The first pillar is supply management via a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quota to each province. The provinces' marketing boards, also known as producer associations, sell quota to their own farmers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand.
The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share.
The third pillar is border control.
Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. For almost a decade now, the price of milk has been plummeting, and small farms are no longer able to cover production costs.
This price level is generally attributed to overproduction. Every year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, it was over 100 million gallons. In the state of Wisconsin, for example, nearly 500 farms per week were shutting down in 2018.
Producers can simply no longer afford to produce for so little income. One of the problems is that the dairy sector is organized around overproduction, particularly with the aim of exporting surplus production at low prices. As a former U.S. secretary of agriculture himself admitted, when you overproduce, only the biggest can survive.
Of course, there is another possible argument. Some people might think that, since producers and processors have finally been compensated, although four years later in some cases, and they are satisfied, small breaches can continue from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards.
Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the agreements with Europe, the Pacific countries, the U.S. and Mexico. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain.
In closing, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements?
The answer to that question should be yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. We have the right to do so, and many countries avail themselves of those provisions. We are not the only ones that protect certain products. Everyone does it, even the countries that are criticizing us for doing so.
It is important to remember that Canada has signed 16 free trade agreements that do not affect supply management in any way. It is therefore possible to discuss and negotiate without touching supply management.
We cannot allow the United States or other countries to force us to abandon our agricultural policies and practices. What are we really trying to protect our production from? We want to protect it from unfair competition.
Our main partner, the United States, is breaking many international trade rules while constantly asking us to give them more access. The U.S. is providing its agricultural industry with billions of dollars in illegal subsidies a year, which cuts production costs for farmers and enables them to resell their products locally or elsewhere at a lower cost. That is strictly prohibited by the WTO.
There is no question that Quebec and Canada are exporting nations. This is not about increasing protectionism. What we want is to maintain a system that has proven its worth for almost 50 years.
Since 2015, I have had the opportunity to introduce two bills, which were rejected. This is my third attempt. If the House were to adopt Bill C‑282, I would share my pride with all parliamentarians from all parties, and with all those who care about protecting an agricultural model that provides our producers with the predictability required to look to the future with dignity, to grow their businesses in the hope of proudly passing on their passion to the next generation with human-scale farms, while always ensuring that they produce high-quality products ethically. This model ensures that everyone wins, from producers to processors to consumers.
By adopting Bill C‑282, we will ensure that never again will supply management be sacrificed on the altar of free trade.
1806 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an issue that has come up on many occasions. I recall very clearly, and it could have been while I was in opposition, talking about the many benefits of supply management. I have been a long-time advocate for it.
The former minister of agriculture on many occasions would stand up and talk about the importance of supply management, as our current Minister of Agriculture has done. It was the Liberal Party that brought in supply management.
Is the member's motivation for this coming from a concern that the Conservatives are saying something? What makes the member believe that supply management in Canada is at risk? Is it the Conservative Party?
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, it is not just the Conservatives who have been chipping away at supply management. The Liberal Party has done it too, after voting, hand on heart, for motions that said supply management should be left alone and needs to be protected. These motions passed unanimously in the House. It is not about who is at fault, the Conservatives or the Liberals. I think that the real problem stems from the fact that Canada's agricultural sectors are ultimately very different, and the government decided that it could sacrifice a sector for the sake of opening up certain markets.
I am sorry, but I am sure that the Conservatives are going to act differently, since their leader said not so long ago that it would be ridiculous to buy out all the quotas. It would cost billions of dollars, and we need to uphold supply management.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
