SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:13:48 p.m.
Watch

Yes, but the hon. member answered. I ask everyone in the House to respect the person who has the floor and not to argue during that time. Those who want to have discussions should leave.

35 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:14:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, so, I was trying to engage in constructive dialogue with my Conservative friends. I was saying that, no matter how many opposition days we spend talking about getting rid of the carbon tax, we will never come up with anything resembling a solution. Earlier, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, whom I like very much, was asked a question. What would the Conservatives do? What is their plan? We know they want to axe the carbon tax, but what would they do instead? This is a major emergency situation. We all know this country switches back and forth between two governing parties. We spend 10 or 15 years with the red party, then 10 or 15 years with the blue party. Sooner or later, the blue party will be back in power. In the meantime, the orange party plays a supporting role over there. That is how the Canadian system works. Sooner or later, the blue party will be back in power with no plan, no idea what to do about the greatest crisis of our time. As I said earlier, this is both sad and disheartening. It is enough to make anyone want to bash their head against a wall. No wonder people in Quebec want to leave this country. No wonder we have 32 seats here. The red party and the blue party would love to get their hands on our seats in Quebec, but they are not taking action. They are not taking meaningful action on issues that are important to Quebeckers. A large majority of Quebeckers agree with me. People come to my office, people from organizations like Mothers Step In and La Planète s'invite in Longueuil. I meet young people and mothers in my riding who are worried about the future of humanity. They come to see me. They say we have to do something. They ask me to take action, to tell Parliament that we must take action. That is what I am doing. They have mandated me to do so. I am here to tell the so-called decision-makers in the government and the official opposition that they must take action. Something must be done. It is truly appalling that they have no plan to deal with the biggest challenge of our time. The Bloc Québécois has solutions. We have asked the government what needs to be done. First, Canada needs to stop investing in fossil fuels. That is absolutely essential. My Conservative friends are always saying that we need to invest in fossil fuels. It is unbelievable that the Liberals outdo even the Conservatives when it comes to supporting oil companies. I am not joking. The Liberals are so useless that there are environmentalists out there who miss the Conservatives. We are talking about an annual investment of $8.5 billion in fossil fuels. How much social housing could be built for $8.5 billion? How much housing could be built to help people who need it? There is a major housing crisis in Quebec and in Canada. I do not know how many times I have talked about this in the House. The Liberals promised they would stop investing in fossil fuels in 2023. I remember asking them about that on December 11. I brought up their promise that investments would drop to zero in 2023, which was 20 days away at that point. It was time to start thinking about it. Now it is 2023, and I have heard nothing about stopping investments. This is one of the first measures that must be implemented. This money must be invested in renewable energy. We need to make a radical shift. Quebec is ready to do that. We have Hydro-Québec. When the company is not being spied on by China, it makes very good electric batteries. They are working on electric motors. We need to put our money there. What could we do if we put the $8.5 billion we send to ExxonMobil into other things? That company made $75 billion in profits last year. Those poor people. Seriously though, we must take this money and invest it in the energies of the future. That is what we need to do.

719 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 5:19:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, listening to the member from the Bloc, one would think that all we need to do is click our heels and the transition would be complete and there would be no more fossil fuels being used in Canada. The member needs to recognize that there is a transition period. There have been some investments. We work very closely, for example, with the NDP provincial government in British Columbia on the LNG. It is about the principle of putting a price on pollution, as governments around the world have recognized the true value of that. It appears that the Conservative Party today has made it very clear that it opposes that principle. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in terms of the principle of the price on pollution and the benefits to society.

138 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:20:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far. I think the UN was recommending that the tax be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030. That is much too late. It is two minutes past midnight right now. It is no longer one minute to midnight. We must do something drastic. My colleague's intervention makes me think of what my Conservative colleagues have been saying all day. They want to have it both ways. We have passed that point. It is after midnight.

115 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/7/23 5:20:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at a time when the planet has to reduce its carbon emissions, oil companies are making record profits. Canadian oil and gas companies are forecasted to make a record-breaking $147 billion in 2022 alone. I want to read a short quote from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. He said the fossil fuel industry is “feasting on...subsidies and windfall profits while households' budgets shrink and our planet burns.” He said that we need to hold the industry and its enablers to account. He said, “I am calling on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies.” New Democrats believe we should be doing that. I wonder if my hon. colleague agrees.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:21:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. I mentioned it in my speech. As I am not an expert, I cannot say how much we should tax those companies. We can see their profits are indecent. Those industries are still making bloated profits from what is happening in the world at this time. We must take this money and invest it for our children. The future of the planet is at stake. There is money there. It is indecent. We must invest it for the future.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Feb/7/23 5:22:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my riding is one of the strongest mining regions in Atlantic Canada. I have a copper mine very close to where I grew up. Right now it is struggling to stay open because of the carbon tax. Every megawatt of wind energy that is generated needs 1,500 kilograms of copper to produce wind energy. I know my hon. colleague from la belle province represents, for sure, lots of mines in his area. Mines are being developed to produce minerals for the green economy. Does he think that those mining companies should be subjected to a carbon tax when they are in fact producing things to produce green energy?

111 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not really my area of expertise, but I do know that the Bloc Québécois proposed a transitional period for oil industry workers. What we are saying is that, one way or another, fossil fuel production will have to cease. However, we know the industry creates a lot of jobs, and we know that matters. These are moms and dads who work in an industry, who have jobs, kids, hobbies, a house and bills to pay, just like everyone else. We are concerned about this, and we are ready to sit down for some level-headed negotiations to figure out how to make this transition, which needs to happen now, as painless as possible for these people.

124 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:24:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington, unfortunately, has only two minutes before we end the proceedings. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

24 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Feb/7/23 5:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will make full use of the full 120 seconds that I am granted to contribute to this debate. The reason we are here today is because after eight years of the current Liberal government, Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Therefore, we are here today with a very simple motion. It is a motion that so many Canadians would appreciate; that is to axe the carbon tax. We believe in keeping the heat on by taking the tax off. This motion is about the people of this country who work hard each and every day to provide for their families. This motion is about the farmers and farm families who go out every day and produce the food that, quite literally, feeds our country and feeds the world. This motion is about the small business owner who goes to work every morning and works hard to provide the services and the goods that will make our country operate. That same small business owner goes home each night and sits around the family kitchen table, adds up the expenses and figures out how to make payroll for the next week and figures out how to make their small business survive. Often, these businesses have been in the family for decades and for generations, and now they are at risk of closing because their expenses keep going up because of the decisions made by the current Liberal government. This motion is clear: Let us take the carbon tax off; let us stop the inflationary effect that the carbon tax is having on Canadians and let us make sure the farmers, the families, the parents and small business owners are allowed to get ahead.

289 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:26:00 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:26 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House]

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:27:07 p.m.
Watch

Therefore, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

41 words

Mr. John Nater

Feb/7/23 5:27:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:27:11 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/7/23 5:27:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:41 at this time so we could begin private members' hour.

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:27:49 p.m.
Watch

Is there consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is now 5:41. Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

39 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 5:28:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Montcalm has provided me to reaffirm the government's support for Canada's supply management system and for the bill before us. We know that our dairy, poultry and egg producers want to keep the system strong and sustainable well into the future, and so do we. Canada's supply management system is a model of stability. It provides a fair price for farmers, stability for processors and high-quality products for consumers, and has done so for over 50 years. Supply management is a pillar of rural prosperity. It sustains farming families and rural communities. The great contribution of supply-managed sectors to our economy is undeniable. In 2021, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated almost $13 billion in farm gate sales and accounted for over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities. In this context, supply-managed sectors have played a significant role in making Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry a leader in sustainable food production and processing with high economic growth potential. For these reasons, the government has consistently reaffirmed its unwavering support for Canada's supply management system, including in the context of international trade agreements. During the negotiations of the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, Canada faced significant pressure to dismantle the supply management system. I cannot stress enough how hard we had to resist. However, we succeeded, and all three pillars of the supply management system remain firmly in place: production controls, pricing mechanisms and import controls. Looking into the future, we will continue to preserve, protect and defend all three pillars of Canada's supply management system. For this reason, in line with the spirit of the bill, the government has publicly committed that we will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. This policy has been clearly and publicly stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Bill C-282 would make this commitment even stronger. We have made this commitment and we will keep it. In fact, we demonstrated this most recently during the negotiation of the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, which did not include any new access for cheese or other supply-managed products. Furthermore, the government believes that ensuring greater involvement of the public, stakeholders and parliamentarians in Canada's trade agenda strengthens the defence and promotion of our broader economic interests, including supply-managed sectors. As such, we have increased transparency in the conduct of trade negotiations and have enhanced reporting obligations to Parliament for new trade agreements. In November 2020, we updated the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament to provide additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new trade agreements. Furthermore, in 2018, this government committed to fully and fairly compensate producers and processors of supply-managed commodities, including dairy, poultry and egg farmers, impacted by recent trade agreements. Our government will continue to preserve, protect and defend our supply management system in the context of any challenge by our trading partners. We are confident that Canada is fully compliant in the implementation of its trade obligations, and we will vigorously defend our interests. To close, let me reiterate the government's unequivocal commitment to maintain supply management as a pillar of strong and sustainable rural prosperity into the future. Bill C-282 is aligned with our commitment, and for this reason, we support it. The government is fully committed to defending the integrity of supply management while also continuing to pursue the ambitious trade agenda on which economic recovery depends.

618 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Feb/7/23 5:32:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Mr. Speaker, the first question I have when looking at this bill is, “Why did we end up here?” Why did we end up with a member who has to put forward legislation that would embed in legislation no further negotiation of access to supply-managed industries in Canada? The answer is that, after eight years of a Liberal government, the supply-managed sector in this country believes they have been failed and they are in need of additional protection. The Liberal government, in successive trade agreements, has continued to negotiate additional access to supply-managed industries here in Canada, and the industries have had enough. They have lost faith in the government. They are asking if someone could please put forward legislation that would protect them into the future. I one hundred per cent understand why they feel that way, because in trade deal after trade deal, more and more of their industry gets negotiated away by the Liberal government, which will stand up to say that it respects supply management and its pillars, but will then sign trade deals that do the exact opposite. A member in this Parliament has said, “Enough is enough,” and they have introduced this legislation. In Dufferin—Caledon, the number one driver of economic activity is the agricultural sector, and we have incredible dairy and poultry farms in my riding. I have had the pleasure of visiting and touring those farms on many occasions. Those farmers work extraordinarily hard to deliver the incredibly high-quality products into the Canadian market. Their biggest fear is what the government is going to do next to make their lives more difficult, whether it is tripling the carbon tax or the various other ways it makes farming more difficult. They are concerned. Farmers have reached out to me to say that they want this legislation to be supported so that they would know that, when the Liberal government negotiates a new trade deal, they would not find themselves giving up more and more market access, which makes it more and more difficult for them to run their farms. That is why we are here. It is another failure of the Liberal government to stand up for Canadians. In this case, it is Canadian farmers. From this side, I think this bill deserves to be studied. It should go to committee, so we could hear what the implications are of enacting something like this in statute. I know there are some in the agricultural sector who would say that they are not thrilled with this. I think we should hear from everyone. Let us hear what they all have to say to decide whether or not this is something that, as a Parliament, we should put forward. I want to come back to this being a pretty sad day to be here, when an industry in this country feels like the government does not have its back going into trade agreements and wants to stop the government from having the ability to even negotiate any further access. They have completely lost faith in the government. I have the same view as those in the dairy sector and all the supply-managed sectors. I have lost faith in the government as well. I look forward to this bill proceeding to committee, where it could be studied in great detail.

565 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/7/23 5:37:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure and a privilege to stand in the House and speak to supply management. At one time, I had the honour of being the official opposition critic for international trade, so I remember well this issue and how deeply it engages so many people who live in this country. I also recognize the threats that supply management has been under for a long time. This bill, Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management, is introduced by my colleague from Montcalm, whom I have the pleasure of serving with on the health committee. I want to congratulate him for this bill, because I think it is a very important and necessary piece of legislation that, unfortunately, is required because supply management has been under threat by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, which have continued to push trade deals that increasingly carve away at one of the key pillars of supply management. This bill would forbid the minister from promising to make larger percentages or amounts of imported dairy products, poultry or eggs, which are supply-managed products in this country, eligible for lowered or waived tariffs. In other words, it would forbid the minister to reduce tariffs applied to these goods when more than are eligible for lowered or waived tariffs are imported. It is unfortunate that we even have to do this, because I have stood in the House for a number of years when successive Liberal and Conservative governments have passionately risen and stated their undying commitment to supply management and their commitment to the farmers in their ridings that they would never encroach upon this very well-thought-out and important system, and then have turned around and negotiated trade deals that increasingly give other countries increased quotas to come into our country. Why is that a problem? I am going to start by explaining just a little bit what supply management is. It is a system that started in the 1970s and that was meant to provide farmers in key industries in this country with the ability to have a stable income and to know how much supply would be provided in any given year. This is the real strength of the system. It is a system that rests on three key pillars. It was brought in because those farmers were suffering through very wild price fluctuations, especially on commodities: One year they might do very well, but the next year they would face ruin. Many farms experienced great difficulty in planning for the future. We know that if one wants to stay competitive and maybe even have an edge in agriculture, investments in technology and machinery are absolutely critical. Supply management provides that certainty, so that farmers can make those investments with the firm knowledge that they will be able to recoup their investment and sell their goods for a fair price. The three pillars of supply management are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. It has been referred to as a three-legged stool. Of course, we all know that if we affect one leg of a three-legged stool, then the whole seating structure is at risk. What has been happening in the trade deals, negotiated and signed by successive Conservative and Liberal governments, is that they have focused on the import control leg of the pillars and they continue to allow more and more goods to be imported into Canada in those supply-managed sectors, which of course threatens the entire system. What this bill would do is remove the ability of the trade minister, when negotiating a trade deal, to put those supply-managed commodities on the table and to trade off, as it were, supply-managed sector goods for other trade benefits. This happened in the TPP. It happened in CUSMA. It happened in CETA. Those agreements did allow, first the European Union, then the TPP countries and now the United States and Mexico, to make ever-increasing inroads into being able to get more of their goods into Canada. I will try to put that into perspective, to see why it could be so destabilizing. It is my understanding that the entire production of milk in Wisconsin would be enough to serve the entire Canadian market. One can only think about those very large corporate farms in the northern United States that, if they were able to have untrammelled access to the Canadian market, would be able to flood Canada with products on an economy of scale that would make it impossible for Canadian farmers to compete. The other factor that is critically important is that supply-managed sectors also give us the ability to make made-in-Canada regulations around the production of our food. For instance, there are certain growth hormones, certain ways of production and certain chemicals that are permitted in other countries that Canada would not want to have in our food system. At the end of the day, Canadians, when given a choice, would like to source their food from local producers. Canadians want to know that they are supporting their neighbours, their small towns and rural Canada, and that we are helping those farmers and those farm families to make a decent living. We want to know that our food is produced in humane, high quality, safe and healthy manners. This means that Canada should have control over our domestic food production. Again, most Canadians support that and I know that the vast majority of farmers in supply-managed industries also support that. I want to just touch briefly on a couple of myths. There is this myth that this artificially increases the price of these goods and the Canadian consumer is somehow being exploited or taken advantage of by the supply-managed sector. Nothing could be further from the truth because what supply management does is provide stable prices. I know that right now in this country we have a crisis in the price of food, but in regular times, generally when someone goes to the store to buy a litre of milk or a dozen eggs over the last 20, 30 or 40 years, they know that they are going to be faced with a stable price. In non-supply-managed countries, they may have extraordinarily cheap eggs and milk one year and then if there is bad production in the next year due to bad weather, blight or disease, the prices of those goods skyrocket. Therefore, what supply management does for consumers in this country is provide a stable source of high-quality, supply-managed goods, including poultry, eggs and milk, at stable prices. That ensures that everybody has access to these excellent products at all times. I know that I speak for my New Democrat colleagues when I say that we are firm, committed and passionate believers in the supply-managed sector. We know it is a system that works well for rural Canada, for farmers and for consumers. To use the old metaphor, “if it ain't broke, don't fix it.” We also know that the forces that are constantly wanting to cut this away are not forces that care about Canadian farmers, small-town communities, rural Canada or consumers in Canada. Rather, they represent large agribusiness, usually multinational agribusiness, or right-wing economic ideologues who are just pursuing a free-market frenzy philosophy without any regard for the actual impact that this will have on our community and our country. Therefore, we are very proud to support this bill to committee. We look forward to listening to the evidence and testimony. I want to again congratulate my colleague from Montcalm for this excellent bill. We look forward to working together to strengthen the supply-managed sector in this country so that Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers have access to high-quality products at all times.

1331 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Feb/7/23 5:46:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent Shefford, a riding that is located in the region known as Quebec's pantry. We are proud of our farmers. Agri-tourism is at the heart of my riding's economy. I love going around to all the public markets and talking to local farmers. Naturally, the subject of Bill C-282, supply management, is vital to many of them. During the last election campaign, I promised the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Haute‑Yamaska that I would fight tooth and nail for supply management and introduce a bill. I also made the same promise during a press conference with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the riding next to mine. It is therefore with great humility and tremendous respect for the the work of the first dynamic trio who recently went to bat for the vital issue of supply management that I rise to speak on this subject. I am talking about my dear colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Montcalm and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I will begin my speech by talking about the importance of supply management. Then, I will remind the House of the Bloc's historic role on this issue and close with the words of some farmers from my riding. First, the bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include the protection of the supply management system as part of the minister's responsibilities. It adds supply management to the list of directives the minister must take into account when conducting business outside Canada, including in international trade. Once this bill comes into force in its entirety, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up for supply-managed farmers in front of our trade partners. The minister will henceforth have the mandate to negotiate agreements without creating breaches in the system, as it did during the signing of the three most important international trade agreements of the past decade. The bill has become necessary, not least because of the serious breaches that previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, opened up and negotiated in the last international trade agreements. These breaches in the supply management mechanism prevent the system from working effectively by attacking the integrity of its basic principles, namely pricing control, production control and border control. In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. This is a system that was put in place in the 1970s. It ensures that we produce just enough to meet domestic demand while avoiding overproduction and waste. It also ensures price stability. Prices are controlled by setting a price floor and a price ceiling so that each link in the chain gets its fair share. That includes the consumer, who can be sure of getting a very high-quality, ethically farmed local product. Another aspect is border control, which includes very high tariffs and import quotas, preventing foreign products or by-products from invading our market. Because the market is largely closed to imports and there are price controls in place, producers do not end up in a never-ending race to lower production costs. The current government is taking a number of worrisome actions that compromise the ability of Canada—and especially Quebec, which has a different agricultural reality—to choose the type of agriculture it wants to develop. In fact, the recent free trade agreements, particularly the one with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, will have catastrophic consequences for certain products and processors under supply management. Border control is the pillar most weakened by the international agreements. However, given that supply management has never come under fire from the World Trade Organization, or WTO, Canada has every right to protect its markets so long as it complies with the degree of openness established by the WTO. If international agreements and the WTO give Canada the right to protect its markets, why have there been concessions? It is because Canada cannot cope with pressure from trading partners during negotiations. It is as simple as that. It succumbs to lobby groups and arguments made by other countries that want access to an as-yet untapped market at all costs. Despite the new aid programs, which were a long time coming, it is abundantly clear that no compensation can possibly make up for the permanent damage caused by concessions in agreements with Europe, the Pacific Rim nations, the United States and Mexico. Accordingly, the Conservatives' argument about how compensation was promised under the Harper Conservatives during the opening rounds of the first two agreements is false. Second, I want to stress the following point: The Bloc Québécois has always defended supply management in Ottawa. This is the second time that this bill has been tabled and, if not for the unnecessary election that the Prime Minister called in August 2021, Bill C‑216 might have made it to the Senate by now. By contrast, the House had to adopt four motions unanimously to ask the federal government to fully protect supply management. However, the Liberal and Conservative governments presumably did not feel bound by this commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements. In fact, because of the concessions that were made, these agreements were catastrophic for agricultural producers and processors under supply management, who are now wondering about their future. Supply management is a model that is envied around the world, especially in jurisdictions that have abolished it. In Quebec, agriculture is practised on smaller farms where there is a much greater concern for quality and respect for the environment. While Quebec's quality-centred agriculture sector is flourishing, with an ever-increasing variety of local products and organic farming, Ottawa is taking the opposite approach by encouraging more industrial agriculture. Until the Quebec government is present at international negotiations and until it gets to act as the sole architect of agricultural policies, there is a serious risk that Ottawa will align the federal government with the needs of western Canada. The Bloc Québécois simply wants the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to keep the promise they have made more than once to stop making concessions at the expense of supply-managed producers. That is all. It was Stephen Harper's Conservatives who got the ball rolling in 2008. Supply management first started crumbling with the Canada-Europe free trade agreement negotiations, because the Canadian government started putting supply management on the table, something it had never dared to do in the past. Since then, there has been one breach after another. Supply management has always been a key issue to the Bloc Québécois. During the entire time that the Bloc Québécois had a strong presence in the House, which I remember well, as I was an assistant then, the government signed free trade agreements with 16 countries and fully protected the supply management system. During the federal election that followed the creation of the WTO, in other words the June 1997 election, defending the supply management system was already one of our election priorities. That was quite a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to move a motion in the House calling for the pillars of the supply management system to be fully maintained. The House will recall that the motion was adopted unanimously by all parties. What is more, for practically every major negotiation, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to protect supply management. We are the defenders of supply management, the voice of supply-managed farmers. Third, I want to share the words of farmers back home. Nancy Fournier, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby who is a member of the board of directors of the Haute-Yamaska branch of the UPA and part of the next generation of Quebec farmers, told us that she is proud of our efforts and our support for agriculture. Denis Beaudry, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby, said the following: “The bill is very relevant because we are fed up with supply management being used as a bargaining chip in treaty negotiations. From a more local perspective, the riding of Shefford is home to many supply-managed businesses, so when supply management is mishandled, the agricultural community suffers. I look forward to seeing whether the other parties will support the bill. The government said that it would no longer compromise on supply management. We will see.” Valéry Martin, a communications advisor at UPA de l'Estrie, said the following: “Supply management provides stability and helps maintain the country's food self-sufficiency. Supply-managed farms are everywhere, keeping our communities strong. There are not many sectors that can provide this kind of predictability, food security and superior quality products without direct subsidies.” I want to say one last thing. Without supply management, there would not be many people left in Abitibi, Saguenay, Lac‑Saint‑Jean or the Gaspé, because it helps ensure that there are family farms all across our beautiful Quebec nation. If there is one economic sector that is key to how our land is used in Quebec, it is the agricultural industry. The statistics speak for themselves. With $9.1 billion in sales generated by just over 42,000 farmers on 29,000 farms, Quebec agriculture is essential, important, vital. Agriculture is going through a very difficult period, however. We are at a crossroads, where we will have to choose between following the trend of more open markets and protecting domestic markets in order to promote human-scale agriculture. We will need strong agricultural policies that will help local farmers make a living providing top-quality agricultural products to consumers. Consumers are also placing increasing demands on farmers. Farmers are being asked to produce better-quality food that is more diverse at a lower price. They are also being asked to protect the environment and use Quebec's land to benefit all of society. As incredible as it may seem, despite the meagre support they receive, farmers are doing a brilliant job of rising to this challenge, despite the pandemic, the labour shortage, the disastrous consequences of the free trade agreements, the war in Ukraine and the inflation crisis. We must respond to the requests of this sector that feeds us, that sustains us. Tomorrow, let us put partisanship aside and vote in favour of Bill C-282. We must take action.

1801 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 155