44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 16, 2022 02:00PM
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
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec.
What is so important in this discussion and we need to remember is that our supply management sector has worked, is working and will continue to work. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to buttress the supply-managed sector.
I will be supporting the bill, because I believe in that type of approach to agriculture. We have seen the success. My riding has been a beneficiary of it, and is very thankful for it. I have seen the difference that our dairy sector, our ag producers as well as our poultry and chicken producers have made. Many of them are family owned and family run. I think it is so important that we hold them up through the supply-managed sector.
I would ask my hon. colleague if he could comment on the absolute importance of food security and how protecting supply management helps preserve our food security here in Canada.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, we saw that supply-managed sectors did not experience the same shortages that other food sectors did.
This system, this management model, is essential for food security, or what I refer to as food self-sufficiency.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.
When it comes to supply management and food security, how could we also start exporting this model abroad so that countries around the world can have a solid local food foundation? That is something that we could do.
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the supply management model is a collective, co-operative model. It makes it possible for everyone from the farmer to the consumer to earn a decent income.
The following is very important in defending supply management. What has been hurting our farmers in the years since the government began chipping away at the system is that they have no predictability. They need predictability to grow their business and to be able to export such a model. If the largest G7 countries begin to undermine it, how can we convince people that this is a smart, sustainable model?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand up and provide comment on the issue of agriculture, but there are really two issues that I would like to address in this legislation. One is the issue of trade and the other is the issue of supply management, which is more directly related to the legislation itself.
First of all, we need to recognize that Canada is a trading nation. We depend very much on trading. We have the world's best products from coast to coast to coast. We need to be able to export our widgets, our commodities and our resources. It generates a phenomenal amount of wealth for our country. It is one of the reasons that Canada is, I would ultimately argue, the best country in the world in which to live.
We can do that because over the years we have set a path that allows us to have what we have today: good, solid trade relations with countries around the world. We need not only to maintain those connections but we also should be looking at ways to expand them.
In the last six or seven years, we have signed off on more trade agreements with countries than any other government in the history of Canada. We understand the way in which we can have an economy that works for all Canadians is to secure, as much as possible, our trade links. Whether it is with the United States and Mexico or many countries in Asia or in Europe, having those agreements signed off is in Canada's best interest. We need that trade. As I say, we are a trading nation.
Recognizing agriculture and its significance is something that is not lost on us. We have recognized that for generations. In fact, it was a Liberal government that brought in supply management.
It has been Liberals that have consistently stood up and talked about the advantages of supply management. Not only are there advantages for the province of Quebec and my home province of Manitoba, but every region of the country benefits. Our agricultural community in certain sectors has come together and provided the best quality milk products, for example, through dairy supply management.
Just the other day I was entertaining some members from the umbrella organization, Chicken Farmers of Canada. We were talking about the production of chickens in the province of Manitoba in particular.
I have had the opportunity to visit a hatchery. A hatchery can tell us within a couple of hours how 10,000 eggs are going to hatch and how those hatchlings will go from that particular plant to a chicken farm, where they will be placed into a barn. They might sit there for 28 days, which I think is what KFC is, to some 40 days.
I love chicken. I would argue that if people want good chicken, they should come to Canada. That is where the best chicken in the world is.
I have seen the process first-hand, from the hatchery to where the chickens grow, to where they are actually processed. In the province of Manitoba, thousands of chickens are being processed in a day.
An hon. member: Bawk, bawk, bawk.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: There are some chickens across the way, I would suggest.
That is a very important industry, as other supply-managed areas are. It provides assurances in terms of quality. That is why I can say with confidence the type of quality product that Canada has that we are able to supply to Canadians in our grocery stores and even, in some situations, in a more direct fashion. I have also had the opportunity to visit dairy farms.
There is a high level of interest in how we as parliamentarians can ensure that quality products remain available for our consumers. We are very much concerned about food security and the role that supply management plays in food security, but we also recognize the true value of those trade agreements. In listening to the Bloc members, one might question whether and to what degree they even support trade agreements. It is almost as if they believe that a trade agreement is as simple as saying, “Here is what we want; sign here,” to another country.
Just last week I was in the Philippines and I met with one of our trade commissioners. I would love to see a bilateral trade agreement between Canada and the Philippines. Agriculture is important. I know that. President Marcos has actually taken on the portfolio of agriculture, much as I know agriculture is so critically important to our Minister of Agriculture and to our Prime Minister. In any sort of negotiations that have taken place, we always and consistently have been there to protect the interest of supply management, without exception and in every agreement. As I said, no government has signed more agreements on trade with individual countries, and that would include the 28 plus in our European Union agreement, as this government has, and supply management is always taken into consideration.
I guess I am a bit more optimistic than are members from the Bloc. However, I am optimistic knowing full well that it is in our farming communities' best interest that we continue to look at trade opportunities. I will cite the pork industry. In Neepawa, Manitoba, there is a plant that employs hundreds of people through HyLife. I would not be surprised if it was even close to 1,000 or maybe even a bit more than 1,000. Members can talk to the community of Neepawa, a town that is thriving today because, in good part, of the pork industry. There is no supply management there, but the pork that the company is exporting is going overseas, to Asia. That production has increased over the last number of years, and we are receiving the benefits in tangible jobs, whether on the farm or in the processing plants. Those jobs are contributing to the buying of real estate and vehicles, providing all sorts of supports to our communities, and the product is actually sold in Asia.
That is why I say, as an example, that trade is absolutely critical to Canada, as is supply management. What the Bloc members have failed to demonstrate is how this government has missed on the issue of protecting Canada's supply management, because the numbers have actually gone up overall. That is the case.
I would like to think that as a government we should continue to look at ways in which we can secure markets, because that is one of the ways we can support Canada's middle class and make sure we have an economy that works for all Canadians and allows us to be able to provide the type of social programming that Canadians want to see in all regions of our country.
1152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise in the House to contribute to the second reading debate on Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).
It is a particular honour any time I get to speak to a bill where I can highlight the work that the hard-working farmers and farm families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada are doing not only to feed Canadians, but quite literally to feed the world.
Bill C-282 may sound familiar to some members and to some Canadians because it is an identical copy of Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament, which was introduced by another Bloc Québécois member of Parliament, the dean of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Members will recall that the bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the unnecessary summer election.
I recognize that both members who introduced this bill have a strong commitment to the supply management industry, which this party and many Canadians across the country certainly support.
I know there are some in this country who may not have the same vigour in supporting supply management, but I think it is important in a bill such as this one that we have a nuanced and thoughtful discussion on its strengths and weaknesses, how it may contribute to the situation, and how it may affect, negatively or positively, future trade deals in decades to come.
I want to talk briefly about food security. If we have learned anything during the past two and a half years of the pandemic, it is the importance of food security. When we have seen broken supply chains and shortages of goods on shelves across the country, it reinforces the necessity of a strong domestic production system.
We need to be able to feed the citizens in our country, but also to export the products that are created here in Canada across the world. I might add that when we have a country that is agriculturally as rich as Canada is, it is a crying shame that there are still Canadians who are food insecure. No Canadian, no person living in this great country of Canada, should be food insecure when we have the great natural benefits of our food production system here in Canada.
I have the honour of representing perhaps the greatest agricultural riding in this country. Perth—Wellington is home to the most dairy farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most chicken farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most pork producers of any area in Ontario, and it is in the top five for beef production as well.
Perth—Wellington has some of the most fertile farmland anywhere in the world. It is some of the most productive farmland that we will find anywhere in the country. The cost of that farmland reflects that, as we are now seeing land sales of over $35,000 per acre in Perth—Wellington and across southern Ontario.
I say that to emphasize the importance of the supply managed commodities, but also the non-supply managed commodities as well. Canadians and Canadian agriculture have certainly benefited from supply management, but there are also benefits from the world market that comes with international trade.
I would note that Perth—Wellington is home to more than 62,000 dairy cows, which is more than the number of people who voted in Perth—Wellington in the last election.
According to Statistics Canada, Perth—Wellington has over 350 chicken and egg farmers and produces over 28 million eggs. That is enough to make 9.3 million omelettes if one uses three eggs to make an omelette. We produce, in the combined counties of Huron and Perth, 542,270,559 litres of milk each year. That is enough milk for each Canadian to have a glass of milk for 56 consecutive mornings.
Those same dairy farmers and farm families provide over $1.2 billion to our national gross domestic product, and that is only in the counties of Perth and Huron. If we combine the counties of Wellington, Dufferin, Peel and Simcoe, which produce 385 million litres of milk, that is another $800 million added to Canada's GDP.
Let us remember as well the great influence of new technology on our agriculture sector. Agriculture is at the leading and cutting edge of technology. We have robotic milkers that have made advances in the dairy industry. We see folks in the beef industry making concrete efforts to increase sustainability and decrease greenhouse gas emissions within the industry. They are doing it on their own. They are doing it because it is the right thing to do. It is beneficial to farmers and the industry, who know the benefit and know they are the closest to the environment, the closest to the land on which they are stewards.
I have had the great honour and privilege to visit so many local farms in my community. I know the commitment these farmers and farm families have not only to feeding our communities, but also to playing their part in the great global supply chain and contributing to increased sustainability. It is important that these farmers have a fair and predictable marketplace where they can compete domestically and, for those who export, internationally.
All is not well in the agriculture industry. Certainly, farmers and farm families are facing the brunt of the inflation crisis and the challenges within the supply chain failures that have been caused by the Liberal government. Fuel, heat, feed, fertilizer, equipment, all of these costs are increasing at a rate that is not sustainable. One proposal from this official opposition is doing one small part to make that better. Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, would exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax for on-farm use. Canadians know that when farmers are drying their grains they need those things and for the government to apply the carbon tax just does not make sense. I am pleased that bill has finally made it out of committee and will be returning to this House for report stage and third reading debate. I am very pleased that my friend and colleague from Huron—Bruce was the one who was able to shepherd the bill through.
What we are seeing as well are the fertilizer tariffs. We still have not seen meaningful action from the government regarding the costs that were imposed on Canadian farmers for fertilizer purchased before March 2. In fact, just today I received another letter from the Minister of Agriculture, as I had begged her to address this, and once again she has failed to provide an encouraging response on this matter.
Farmers and farm families need support and reassurance from the federal government, not ongoing challenges, including, I might add, the unfair, unscientific approach to front-of-pack labelling labelling. The government was finally forced to back down from having it on ground beef and other single ingredient products.
The Liberal government unfortunately neglects too many farmers and farm families in the agriculture industry. In fact, if anyone had listened to the fall economic statement earlier this month, they would have found that a focus on agriculture was sorely lacking.
I recognize that this bill, Bill C-282, is largely a reaction to concessions that the Liberal government made in the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, the CUSMA, in which further concessions were made for dairy, poultry and eggs. I would note that it was under our Conservative government, under the strong leadership of the former minister, the member for Abbotsford, that Canada committed to trade deals with dozens of international countries, where we expanded our foreign markets, all while ensuring the supply management industry was properly protected. That is the approach the Conservative government has taken in the past and one that would be taken in the future.
Certainly, this bill has some challenges in how it would be implemented and how it would be dealt with at the negotiation table, but that is something that could be considered at the committee stage. It is important that the bill be given a thorough examination at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Recognizing that my time is dwindling, I shall move on to the final point, which is the importance of our agriculture and agri-food industry, which not only feeds our country, but helps to feed the world.
1461 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the member for Montcalm for bringing forward this bill for us to consider. I appreciate having this bill because it allows me to talk about my riding and the long, storied and very rich agriculture history of the Cowichan Valley. We have multi-generational farms there.
For Cowichan tribes, in the Hul'q'umi'num language, Cowichan means the warm land. We are blessed with a beautiful little microclimate in the Cowichan Valley. We get copious amounts of rain in the winter, but we are absolutely blasted by the sun in the summer. It allows for a very unique growing climate where there is a very strong connection between local farmers and the population that they grow food for.
As to supply management, I am very lucky to have a number of dairy farms in the Cowichan Valley and a number of egg farms. In my seven years as a member of Parliament representing that amazing riding, I would be remiss if I did not point out how welcoming supply-managed farmers there have always been to me. They have always extended the courtesy of an invitation so that I can go and tour their farms to see how modern they are, how efficient they are and how the supply management system is able to give them a good income and also allow them to plan for the future.
That is a real strength of the system. It is a system that rests on three key pillars. It was brought in because a lot of farmers back in the 1970s and before were suffering through very wild price fluctuations, especially on commodities. It was really hard to try to plan for the future. Many farms experience that to this day. If one does not know what one's income is going to be in the year or years ahead, it makes it that much harder to do financial planning around the farm, and that is critical.
If one wants to stay competitive and have an edge, investment in technology and machinery is absolutely critical. Supply management has always allowed farmers to do that. When one goes to some of the dairy farms around the Cowichan Valley, one can see that they are actually serviced by remarkable robotics. It is quite incredible to see the level of technology on display.
Those three pillars are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. Like a three-legged stool, if one were to weaken one of those pillars, the whole system would be at risk. It needs all three to work in tandem, in harmony, and to also be strong.
Under our system, we have not had so much trouble with production control, which is issued through quotas, or on the pricing part. The part that has always been targeted by governments of a variety of stripes is import control. The way we do this is through tariff rate quotas. We do allow imports of certain dairy products such as eggs and poultry. They can come in at a certain rate, but once they go over the maximum amount that is allowed, a huge tariff is placed on them. That is to protect our homegrown system.
I am sure if one were to ask any Canadian, their preference would be to always have locally sourced food. I think it is a point of pride that we have developed a system where our farmers can not only thrive but also produce that good local food for their local communities.
That brings me to why Bill C-282 is before us. I can understand why this bill was brought forward. I was here in the 42nd Parliament. I remember hearing the news of how the TPP had been negotiated, the CETA and also, later on, CUSMA. Each one of those agreements started carving out more of our supply-managed market and allowing more foreign imports to come into Canada. That was despite repeated pleas from the industry to the Liberals to leave their sector alone. Now we have a bill that is going to specifically address that and curtail the ability of a foreign affairs minister to negatively impact it.
I have been very curious to see where the Conservatives will land on this bill because, in the previous Parliament, when Bill C-216 was brought before this House, I believe the Conservative caucus was split. About a third of them supported it and two-thirds were against.
I can understand the awkwardness for the Conservative Party because at one time it almost had mad Max as a leader, the famous man from Beauce. He was almost the leader of the Conservative Party. It went down to, I think, the 13th ballot. Maxime has always been very vocal in his opposition to supply management, which is a very curious thing given the region he comes from, and it may explain why he is no longer here as a member of Parliament. It will be interesting to see, when this bill comes to second reading vote, what the blue team will be able to do on this.
I will read out a few facts and figures. Last year, Canada had over 9,000 dairy farms. It is an industry that contributes 221,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP. We have over 5,200 poultry and egg farms. One statistic that has always stood out for me is that Canada, with a population of around 36 million people, has over 1,000 egg farms. In the United States, which has 10 times the population, there are just over 100. This shows the differences in the systems.
We have a system that has allowed 1,000 egg farms to thrive on a population that is a tenth the size of our southern neighbour. We know the state of Wisconsin produces more milk than our entire country. Farmers there, unfortunately, have suffered negatively from wild price fluctuations. I know, from talking to farmers, that many of our southern neighbours do look north in envy of the system we have in place here.
Bill C-216 was successfully referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and reported back to the House. Unfortunately, in 2021, we had to deal with an unnecessary election, which had the effect of killing the bill outright. I hope we have enough runway for this bill to make a longer push this time. I am certainly going to be giving my support for it to be heading to committee, just as I proudly did last time.
If we look at the mechanics of this bill, we need to take a look at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. Section 10 basically spells out all of the functions, duties and powers the minister of foreign affairs has. For example, the ability to conduct diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of our country and foster the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce. These are a few examples of what the powers and duties are, as they currently exist in the act.
What Bill C-282 seeks to do is to basically prevent the foreign affairs minister from making any kind of a commitment by international treaty or agreement that would have any effect of increasing the tariff rate quota, so basically allowing more foreign imports to come in, and of course reducing the tariff rate on that particular quota that is coming in.
Again, it is born out of the experience of dealing with Liberals over the last seven years, where they repeatedly stood up in the House and said that they were the strong defenders of supply management, but every single trade deal that came through the House and was enacted was always slicing a bit more of the pie away. I understand why this bill is before us.
I am always happy to have the opportunity to talk about farmers, not only those across this great country but also those in my riding, and I am always happy to stand here as a strong defender of supply management, as all New Democrats always have been. I look forward to this bill getting another turn at committee. I congratulate the member for Montcalm for bringing it forward.
1389 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has just finished his speech, for his support.
This is the moment of truth. This is the moment when we separate the parliamentarians who make vague promises they do not necessarily intend to keep from those who are prepared to put their names down on paper. In real life, if someone makes a commitment, they are prepared to put their name down on paper.
There have been plenty of commitments and vague promises to protect supply management. There has been no shortage of unanimous motions. Our hon. colleague from Montcalm mentioned them earlier. The Quebec National Assembly has also unanimously adopted several motions. This is what everyone wants. It is time to put it on paper, in legislation. That will give us a reading on those vague promises.
This legislation will broaden the Minister of International Trade's mandate to include the obligation to protect supply-managed sectors. It will be written into the mandate letter. A lot of parliamentarians are trying to make us believe that this is not possible and that it will hurt trade.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary just now. To be honest, I found the substance of his speech disappointing. He said that Bloc Québécois members never proved the government had not kept its word, yet it signed twice. Not only did it sign twice, but in the latest trade agreement with the United States, CUSMA, class 7, milk by-products, was cut out even though it was there because of a perfectly legal internal agreement between producers and processors. The government did that because our milk by-product exports bothered the Americans.
Not only did it bend, it actually rolled over and gave up class 7. It gave a foreign country permission to control the amount of product we export to a third country. That is unbelievable. Plus, the member has the gall to tell us that we did not prove the government does not keep its promises.
Okay, rant over. I hope he was listening.
Back to the topic at hand. Understanding why it is important to protect supply management starts with understanding what it is.
There are three components. The quantity produced is controlled, and the price is controlled. So far, so good. However, to be able to control the quantity produced in order to control the price, what enters from outside our borders must also be controlled. It is like a three-legged stool. There must be three points of support to keep it balanced, stable and upright.
Consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments have been merrily cutting off the third leg, bit by bit. They cut off a section of the leg representing what enters from outside in the first agreement, then in the second, and again in the third. The stool is still standing, but it is definitely crooked.
Fortunately, our farmers are good farmers; they are proud and they are brave. They work hard and make the system work. However, if we do not protect it now, there will be new international agreement negotiations in the coming months and years. Think of the agreements with Great Britain, Mercosur or any other trade group. This is a global trend. That it fine; it is normal.
To answer another of the parliamentary secretary's questions, yes, the Bloc Québécois supports international trade. The Bloc Québécois has read the WTO rules. It discovered that, under the WTO rules, every country has the right to protect certain sectors of its economy. That is legitimate. Everyone does it. The Americans complain all the time, but they protect their cotton and sugar, just as the Japanese protect their rice. In Canada and Quebec, we protect our supply-managed sectors. That is all. It is as simple as that because the system works well, as we saw during the pandemic. That was noted by my brilliant colleague from Montcalm, with whom I am pleased to share the responsibility of advancing this fundamental bill.
I would like to talk about what would happen if we got rid of supply management. The parliamentary secretary and the government have two choices right now: either protect supply management, or continue to kill it bit by bit. Many times in the House, I have criticized the government for its lack of courage and its nefarious intent to kill supply management over 10, 15 or 20 years so that it does not end up costing the government anything. The plan is to take away a little bit from farmers, let them struggle along, take away another little bit, let them struggle along and then give them some compensation.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the minister for keeping her word and paying the final compensation this fall. We are pleased and farmers are pleased; the case is closed. Now, let us make sure this never happens again. Let us move on. I invite each and every parliamentarian here to show some respect for the people who feed us, who get up every morning and work hard. It is a magnificent system.
Many of my colleagues talked about Wisconsin, where the farms are huge. The average herd size in Quebec is about 87 cows, whereas in the United States, the average herd size is more than 300 cows. There are also farms that are even bigger than that. Do we want milk full of hormones that comes from mega-farms? The reason there are mega-farms in the United States is because the Americans recklessly liberalized their market.
We were smart enough to come up with a system that works well. I am very proud of my pork producers, which is clear any time people from other parties talk to me about pork and exports. I would never prevent them from exporting. I am talking about people out west who want to feed the world and want to export more grain and other commodities. We can do that while protecting our supply management system, which is critical and gives us a strong foundation of food sovereignty and resiliency.
I hope I do not hear any more of the nonsense I was hearing earlier. My colleagues know that this is the second time we have introduced such a bill, because this government likes to prorogue Parliament whenever there is a minor scandal, or call an election whenever there are too many bills on the table that would be damaging to it. Last time, the Liberals voted for our bill, and I thank them for that. I urge them to do the same this time around.
I was thrilled with the answer that the Prime Minister gave me in the previous Parliament when I asked whether he would support us. I would like to remind the House that, at the time, I reached out to the members of the Conservative Party, who were the only ones who were not on board with protecting our sector. They were divided on the issue, as my NDP colleague mentioned earlier. I reached out to them and I am still doing so. The people in our rural areas, our supply-managed producers, need security and predictability. If we do not pass this bill, we will be sending them the message that they need to sell their quotas while they are still worth something because there will be no guarantees in 15 years. That is the message we will be sending.
Regardless of the promises the government makes, no one here can guarantee that the figure will be the same in six months, one year or five years, and no one can guarantee that the same party will be in power either. Collectively, the time is right. Farmers are asking for this, and they are looking to us. Farmers in Berthier—Maskinongé, Quebec and all of Canada are looking to us hopefully.
I will end my speech with an appeal to all farmers. I urge them to rally together and join forces with us. I know they are already on board. I encourage them to call their member of Parliament, whether they are Liberal, Conservative, or any other political stripe, to explain what life is like for them and what supply management contributes to their communities.
Supply management does more than simply ensure that farmers have a decent income. It also keeps communities alive, ensuring that there are twelve farms in the community, not two. It helps ensure that the village school is not empty. The benefits of supply management are exponential in a community. We need to protect our model, and I ask all members to do the right thing and to do it in a positive way.
1464 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 6:57:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with record inflation fuelled by corporate greed, finding safe, affordable and adequate housing has become out of reach for many Canadians. New Democrats have been calling on the Liberals to invest in affordable housing and to stop the profiteering of corporate landlords, but unsurprisingly, the Liberals are tone deaf to the realities of everyday Canadians.
Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, have made deep cuts to social and co-op housing and have allowed the cost of housing to increase. Under the Harper government, the cost of buying a home increased by 77%, and under the Liberal government, it has gone up another $300,000. The average rent in Canada now is over $2,000 a month. One in five Canadians puts more than 30% of their total income towards their housing cost. Families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table.
When the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing strategy in 1993, Canada lost more than 500,000 units of social and co-op housing that would otherwise have been built. Now, nearly three decades later, both the Liberals and the Conservatives allow investors to treat housing like a stock market, driving up rents and home prices.
The NDP knows that to address the housing crisis, we have to stop the financialization of housing and we need to meaningfully develop social housing and co-op housing units. Housing advocates are calling for the development of at least 300,000 units of core need housing. We need social housing; we need supportive housing, and co-op is a proven model that works. In fact, rents in co-op housing are $400 to $500 less per month compared to private market rental units.
The Liberals like to talk about their so-called record investments in affordable housing, but the Auditor General's report released yesterday exposed that the government is failing to address the dire homelessness and housing crisis. The Liberals have spent billions to build homes that Canadians cannot afford. What is worse is they do not even know if chronic homelessness has increased or decreased since 2019. They have no idea who is benefiting from their housing initiatives.
The National Housing Strategy Act, passed in 2019, enshrined a human rights based approach to housing under the law. It commits the government to reducing homelessness and to focusing on improving housing outcomes for vulnerable groups and those with the greatest need, yet three years later, Canada's housing crisis is getting worse. The Liberals have spent billions to develop housing that is not affordable for those in need.
The national housing co-investment fund is a program meant to deliver rental housing units at below 30% of one's total income. It was a program meant for low-income households, many of whom are among the most vulnerable, but instead of delivering that, the Liberals changed the affordability criteria to 80% of median market rent. Consequently, low-income and vulnerable people cannot access this housing because it is not affordable. In fact, the housing developed under this program is failing low-income families in seven provinces and territories. At this rate, the Liberals are on track to miss their own target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2028.
The Liberals' incompetence is shocking. The fallout is deadly. In B.C. alone, there were 247 deaths among individuals experiencing homelessness in 2021, a 75% increase since 2020. In Vancouver East, a large-scale homeless encampment is now a permanent fixture and individual homeless tents are proliferating on the streets—
598 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:01:55 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry, but the member's time is up. She will be able to continue during her next intervention.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:02:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for her consistently advocacy on this very pressing issue.
There is no that doubt housing affordability is one of the most pressing issues in the country right now, especially for the most vulnerable, as she articulated. Everyone needs and everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. There is no space between our position and the position of the member opposite on that front.
What I will take issue with is some of the points she made with respect to social and co-op housing. We know that we made a significant investment of $1.5 billion in the last budget, committing to building more units. We talked about historic investments in co-operative housing. I believe the member opposite is fully aware that the Minister of Finance herself grew up in co-operative housing and is deeply committed to expanding the supply of such housing.
This housing includes our commitments to the rapid housing initiative. We announced the details last week, with an expansion of the RHI. That program has consistently exceeded its targets since we introduced it in the early days of the pandemic. It has quickly yielded more than 10,000 new units for people who need them the most. When we talk about people who need it the most, we are talking about initiatives that are focused on women, racialized persons, marginalized persons, indigenous persons and seniors. Those are important objectives to address the vulnerabilities that have been highlighted by the member opposite.
These new steps to boost housing affordability are critical, and we intend to continue in this vein. The 2022 budget reallocated $500 million of funding to launch a new co-operative housing development program, as I mentioned, which is about expanding co-op housing. That includes $1 billion in loans to support co-op housing projects. That is the largest investment in co-op housing for more than 30 years. There is, again, no disparity between the position of the government and the position of the NDP on this particular issue. This investment alone will yield 6,000 new units.
All this activity is building on our efforts and our successes in the housing sector thus far. It is clear there is a housing crisis. We saw that when we were first elected in 2015. We immediately took steps to prioritize housing. We have since created and repaired 440,000 homes. We have taken historic steps to ensure that everyone in this country has a place to call home. That includes people across the spectrum of housing need.
I could give some examples. There is Canadian Forces veteran Bill Beaton, who went from being homeless to living in Veterans' House, a supportive housing facility constructed with funding from the national housing co-investment fund. There is Lianne Leger, a recent university graduate, who was able to make a home for herself in Whitehorse, thanks to the first time home buyer's incentive. There are also the residents of Co:Here housing community, which is in the member opposite's own riding of Vancouver East. That is a 26-unit affordable housing building created through the Government of Canada's bilateral housing agreement with the province.
I want to thank my colleague and her party for her concern about housing affordability in Canada, and point to these significant actions.
568 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:06:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would invite the member to actually read the report that the Auditor General just released yesterday. It is entitled “ Report 5—Chronic Homelessness”.
The situation is that the government does not know what is going on, and it does not even know if it is meeting the needs of those who are homeless. This is from the Auditor General. The Auditor General also indicated that the government is not going to meet its own targets. This is not just me talking. This is the reality from the Auditor General, who is bringing this issue to the government's attention.
We are approaching another cold, wet season. It just snowed outside in Ottawa. It snowed in Vancouver last week. There have been enough excuses and enough talking points. People are dying on the streets. Housing is a basic human right. Let us get on with it. The Liberal government needs to do its job and build the housing to house people so they can have a roof over their head and safe place to call home.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:06:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member just mentioned, and she mentioned it in her first intervention as well.
When we enacted the legislation that furthers the national housing strategy two Parliaments ago, in the 42nd Parliament, we enshrined housing as a human right. Again, that is a critical component of our government's prioritization of housing. Also, there is agreement on the idea of removing profiteering from the housing sector and stopping the treatment of it as a commodity.
The Auditor General's report is an important report, as is the initiative we have taken to end homelessness and set targets. Meeting those targets is a priority for our government. We will review that report and respond to it accordingly. We have continued to prioritize housing throughout our mandate. We have a plan to keep it that way. We expanded the rapid housing initiative because we believe a safe and affordable place to call home is the right of every Canadian.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:07:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my question on September 28, I pointed out to the government that in Restaurants Canada's annual report, over the last 12 months 43% more restaurants had closed than opened. Additionally, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada report that our nation’s small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, are responsible for 10 million jobs in our country.
Like all SMEs, restaurants help to employ 88.3% of Canada’s private labour force. However, all is far from well. In August 2022, for the first time in history, there were over 180,000 client visits in one month to the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto.
In prepandemic times, just to put it in context, it would have had 60,000 client visits. If we fast-forward to January 2022, with the increases in inflation, there were 120,000 visits and, as mentioned earlier, in the most recent reported figure in August, that number has tripled, from 60,000 prepandemic to 180,000 client visits in one month.
There is serious hardship here. Many Canadians face a really harsh winter. This reality is not some partisan thing; it is a very serious situation. It is one thing for a senior minister to suggest that it is not going to be an easy time for Canadians, that it is not going to be an easy time for Canada and that we have to make do with today’s realities.
Does the government have any other viable plan, and if so, what is it?
265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:09:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me outline some of the measures that we are taking to address supports for restaurants and the tourism industry and in terms of addressing the inflation that is affecting all Canadians, including people outside Canada. It is, indeed, a global phenomenon.
We know that Canadians and Canadian businesses, along with those in countries around the world, are dealing with inflationary pressures and increasing interest rates. Things like high oil prices and global supply chain disruptions are leading to a scarcity of goods and to rising prices. Those are a serious concern for the member who raised this question, and they are a serious concern for the government.
We also understand the important role that restaurants play in communities from coast to coast to coast. In fact, we were there to support them through the pandemic and provided direct support to the hospitality and tourism industry. During the past two and a half years, our government introduced financial support for employees' wages, subsidies for rent, and loans to provide liquidity relief to ensure businesses' survival through the recovery period.
We took those actions because small businesses are indeed the heart of Canadian communities and the engine of Canada's economy. This was highlighted by the member for Spadina—Fort York. Small businesses contribute 55% of Canada's GDP and employ 10.8 million Canadians across the country. That is an astounding number, and that is why they deserve our support.
What budget 2022 outlined was a range of incentives to help small businesses remain strong through the economic uncertainty that was highlighted by the member who raised this question. We have cut the small business tax rate from 11% to 9%, which is essential to support businesses coming out of the pandemic. We are working to deliver lower credit card fees to reduce this burden on small businesses. We have stated quite clearly in the fall economic statement that if a negotiated solution is not reached, we will table legislation to regulate that sector and regulate those fees. We have also enhanced the small business financing program by increasing annual financing to small businesses by an estimated annual $560 million, helping businesses and their owners access liquidity for start-up costs and intangible assets.
Tourism is very vibrant in the riding of Spadina—Fort York. I know this quite well as the member for the riding just adjacent to Spadina—Fort York. We know that virtually all tourism businesses are small businesses themselves, and those tourism businesses employ two million people across this country. Hospitality and tourism is an inclusive industry that provides jobs and opportunities to newcomers, women, youth and indigenous people. These are specific groups that have experienced some of the worst impacts of the global pandemic.
We have been supporting these businesses in their efforts to strive for even greater inclusivity, with things like the women entrepreneurship program, the Black entrepreneurship program, and targeted supports for indigenous businesses. Returning to budget 2022, we outlined a proposal for $20 million over two years to support a new indigenous tourism fund to help indigenous tourism recover from the pandemic and position itself for long-term sustainable growth.
We also announced a commitment to develop a new federal tourism growth strategy focused on recovery and civility and growth in the long term. To further spur the recovery, jobs and growth of small businesses, we have launched the Canada digital adoption program. CDAP is a $4-billion program that will help restaurants grow their online presence and boost online ordering. These are targeted supports to help the small businesses that the member for Spadina—Fort York is outlining.
613 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/16/22 7:13:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two questions.
One, does my hon. colleague believe that the government should be instituting a comprehensive plan to help Canadians cope with the record food costs and the high interest rates?
Two, given how there are other metrics that lag, I would suggest that food bank usage is as close to a real-time indicator that really demonstrates or illustrates, quite frankly, how Canadians are doing, particularly those who are most vulnerable. It should be monitored and used to inform public policy. Would my hon. colleague agree that food bank usage is a metric the government should begin monitoring?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
