44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-282. On the Conservative side, we absolutely support supply management. We always have been.
In my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, there are many supply-managed farms, both in dairy and, of course, in eggs and poultry. I take the opportunity to visit those farms on a regular basis. The last break week, I visited dairy farms in my riding and I talked about the bill and the incredible contributions that they made not just to my riding of Dufferin—Caledon but all across Canada.
That being said, I really do have concerns with respect to the bill and a big part of it is that the bill has turned into a gigantic wedge issue with all the rest of the folks in the agriculture sector. Every agricultural sector outside of supply management has said it does not support the bill. These people are concerned about what the repercussions will be to their sector in any future trade agreement.
Why are they thinking that? When we take something off the table in a negotiation, then our negotiating partner will automatically take something off the table as well. If we are taking supply management off, and that is something our negotiating partner is interested in, it will take something off the table that Canada is interested in, and we end up with trade agreements that are less ambitious, less broad in scope and therefore have less economic prosperity for Canadians.
This is an example of who came to the committee to say they supported supply management. There are agricultural colleagues, our friends and neighbours, who are against this bill, such as the Canola Council of Canada; the Canadian Canola Growers Association; the International Cheese Council of Canada; the National Cattle Feeders' Association; the Canadian Cattle Association; CAFTA, which is the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance; Cereals Canada; just to name a few. They have all said that they think this bill will damage their opportunities to export their products around the world. They spoke very forcefully against the bill at committee.
What the bill has accomplished, to a large extent, is to pit one farmer against another, and that is truly unfortunate.
Government officials have also spoken against the legislation. When the bill was before the previous parliament it was Bill C-216, and there were several questions that were asked with respect to it. I will quote one section.
Mr. Doug Forsyth said:
If we were to end up with this bill as it is written, I think very much that we would start with a much smaller scope of negotiations with various partners. It wouldn't be unusual for them to say “That's fine. Canada has taken these issues right out of play. We will take issues that are of interest to Canada right out of play.” Then you're talking about negotiating from a smaller pie...
That is exactly the concern I have raised. Canada is a free-trading nation. We rely on free trade, as 60% to 70% of our GDP comes from trade. We are a trading and exporting nation, and agricultural products are a huge bedrock of our exports. When every other agricultural sector is saying that it is concerned about what this is going to do with respect to its ability to export its products around the world and in negotiations for other free trade agreements, we should listen.
One of the things I tried to accomplish at committee was to have extra meetings to have trade experts come to say what they thought the impact of the bill would be with respect to negotiating future trade agreements, and the committee received letters from trade experts.
This is a snippet from a letter from Robert de Valk, who said:
Remember what Canada had to pay in 1989 to keep supply management off the table when the Canada-US Trade Agreement (CUSTA) was completed – increased access. Now all our trading partners can rightfully ask for compensation. The bill, unfortunately, may have the unintended consequence of putting the supply management sector in focus early in any future negotiations.
When we talk about future negotiations, our free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, is under review at six years. We are three years away from that. With this bill passing, what happens if the United States says that it wants some additional access in supply managed industries? Under this bill it would be absolutely impossible. Then what happens? Are we going to blow up our entire free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico because of this legislation? These are the unintended potential consequences of the legislation.
At committee, I also asked government officials if we would have been able to successfully renegotiate NAFTA, which became CUSMA, if supply management was off the table? This was the answer, “Madam Chair, I was not a part of the negotiating teams for either of those negotiations. However, the stated policy of the Canadian government during both of those negotiations was that“ supply management was off the table and that they would “make no concessions. Therefore, having ultimately determined that such concessions were necessary, I can only conclude that failing to do so would have put the deal at jeopardy.”
This is what we would be looking at if we pass legislation like this. We are potentially putting other trade deals at jeopardy with respect to one sector of the Canadian economy. I find this absolutely troubling.
However, if we take away the challenges with future deals and if we take away the challenges with the review of CUSMA, or USMCA, whatever we want to call it, those are big, extraordinary challenges as a result of this.
Let us look at it in a broader context. Our largest trading partner is the United States, with 70% of our trade going to the United States. We have two major trade irritants with the United States right now.
First, on softwood lumber, $8 billion worth of duties have been collected as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. This has been going on for eight years, with no progress at all on resolving it.
Second, country of origin labelling for beef is percolating in the United States again. It would have devastating impacts for Canadian cattle.
If we go to the United States and say that we want to try to resolve these things, I think it will say, especially with beef, that we have just protected an entire swath of our agricultural sector and it will want to know why the United States can not go forward with its country of origin labelling.
The bill would give the United States a hammer to hit us with in negotiations, to try to resolve the trade irritants that we have now. These are the unintended consequences of passing this legislation.
We can support supply management without the legislation. Our country has done it. In all the free trade agreements we have around the world, there is only a couple where access has been granted on supply management. When that access was granted, Canadian producers were compensated financially.
When we look at the statistics on farm gate proceeds, for example, with respect to dairy, actual production of milk has gone up despite access that has been granted. Therefore, farm gate receipts have gone up despite access being granted.
If access is granted, we could compensate those who are affected. Also, because the Canadian population is growing, the Canadian economy is growing, so they still produce more, sell more and make more money. The system as it is exists very well. It is not, as we keep hearing, the first thing on the negotiating table in a free trade agreement. It is the absolute last thing. It is the only thing that would get done, because if we did not, we could not get a deal.
Imagine, if this bill was in place when we were trying to renegotiate NAFTA with the United States and the United States demanded more access in supply management. It is very interested in it, because we have disputes under USMCA with respect to how it applies tariff-reduced quota in the dairy sector. We know it is important to the United States. We would not have a deal, and government officials very clearly said that.
The intention of the bill is good. We should protect supply management. I understand why farmers are nervous and frustrated, because the government has not negotiated good deals, like CPTPP. The original TPP granted less access in supply management. The Liberal government came along and gave up so much more in CPTPP. However, the bill would have unintended consequences that would not be good for Canada and the Canadian economy.
1479 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, not only as the NDP's agriculture critic but also as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and for all of the supply-managed farms in my beautiful riding to offer my full-throated support of Bill C-282. Just as a quick review for people to catch up, this bill is seeking to amend the existing statute, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.
A quick reminder is that the act, in one of its important sections, spells out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For example, the act specifies that the minister conduct all diplomatic and consular relations on behalf of Canada and foster the expansion of Canada's international trade and commerce, etc. Bill C-282 would add a new clause into that act to specify that the minister must not make any commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada that would have the effect of increasing the tariff rate quota or reducing the tariff that is applicable to goods in that category, which are two very important aspects. I will lay out reasons why.
First of all, I want to say that I am proud to be a member of a party that has long stood by our supply-managed farmers and continues to do so up to this day. We absolutely recognize that supply management as a system protects our family farms and our rural communities and protects and promotes hundreds of thousands of jobs. Its economic impact in communities like mine is huge. It rests on three pillars; I have heard the expression “the three-legged stool”. Of course, we know that with a three-legged stool, if one is to affect any one of the legs the whole system collapses and they are all necessary to stand up and maintain the system.
Those three pillars are production control, pricing mechanisms and import control. Under supply management, we have a national marketing agency that determines the production amounts for each commodity and sets production quotas for each of our provinces. We also know that our supply-managed producers are guaranteed a minimum price for their products. Those provincial marketing boards allow them to negotiate the minimum farm gate prices with the processors of their products.
The third pillar, which is the key theme of today's discussion, is import control. The way we regulate import control is through tariffs on foreign imports. Tariffs are applied whenever foreign imports in a supply-managed sector exceed the allowable quantity and then they are subject to a massive tariff that essentially makes them uncompetitive. For each of our main products, whether in dairy, eggs, poultry or turkey, successive trade deals have whittled away at that important pillar and now we do allow import of some foreign products in each of those categories up to a certain amount, after which they are subjected to a high tariff.
The system has proven itself time and time again over decades of use. It offers important stability for producers, processors, service providers and retailers. It allows our federal and provincial governments to avoid subsidizing those sectors directly. That is in strict contrast to our competitors both in the United States and in the European Union.
I need to underline this point: Supply management protects the taxpayer because we avoid subsidizing the industry. It allows farmers in those sectors to actually make a good income and to innovate and invest in their respective farms. That is in stark contrast to the wild price fluctuations we have seen south of the border in the United States, in particular, where overproduction has led to dire economic circumstances for many of the farms, particularly in the dairy sector. The same goes for the European Union. That is where taxpayer funds are used to directly subsidize those industries. That is in stark contrast to the system that we have here in Canada whereby supply management allows the system to survive without that direct intervention.
I know some of the criticisms out there. We have heard it time and time again, particularly from the OECD, which has said that supply management stifles innovation. However, we know that is not true.
In many of the farms I have visited in my own riding, particularly the dairy operations, the technology in use in those operations is state of the art. It is that way because the farmers who operate those systems have had the guaranteed income and they know they can make the investment by betting against future incomes. They have been able to innovate, they have been able to invest; they have been able to make their operations world class and the envy of many nations around the world.
I talked about the economic impacts. I referenced the economic impacts in my own riding. If we look country-wide, for example, in 2021, Canada had 9,403 dairy farms. Production and processing of dairy products contributes to 221,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP every single year. The same year for poultry and egg farms, we had 5,296 farms. Production and processing of poultry and eggs contributes more than 100,000 jobs and over $8.5 billion to Canada's GDP. Therefore, the economic impact of this sector is significant and it matters to many communities.
Now, let us look at how Bill C-282 fared at the international trade committee. I do want to take time to recognize my fellow NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, who helped shepherd that bill through committee on my behalf. That was some great work on his part to get the bill to this stage. That committee had six meetings. About 45 witnesses came forward and testified. As a result of that testimony there were a number of amendments proposed to the bill. None were successful, so ultimately the version of the bill that we see before us today is the same that the House gave voice to at second reading.
I want to outline some of the testimony that we heard at committee because I have heard other members reference this.
One of the important testimonies that we heard was from Mr. Tom Rosser, who is the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. He said:
The Government of Canada is working hard to ensure that the supply management system remains strong and that producers and processors operating in the system remain productive and sustainable.
Bill C-282 would protect these sectors from additional market access concessions in the context of future trade negotiations, and as such is fully consistent with existing policy.
We had Mr. Keith Currie, someone I have become very familiar with and worked with over the years. He is now, of course, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He said:
Canada's three most recent trade agreements have had a considerable impact on supply-managed farm families and the system that supports them. It's our hope this new legislation will encourage Canada's negotiators to look to other negotiating strategies that do not place one agriculture sector against another, and instead focus our energy on issues that unite us, such as reducing non-tariff trade barriers.
The interesting thing about this bill as I wrap up here, is that the vote on sending the bill back to the House was an interesting one because both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses were split. We had the Liberal member for Nepean vote against sending this bill back to the House and we had a Conservative member from Oshawa and a Conservative member from Dufferin—Caledon also vote against sending this bill back to the House. It is interesting to see the splits that exist in both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses. I am very curious to see the final vote on this bill when we come to third reading.
I understand, of course, that there were a number of objections raised to the bill about this being a non-tariff trade barrier, that it constrains Canada's ability to negotiate the best possible deal, but I will again say this. We have been let down successively three times back in the 42nd Parliament. I was there. Despite the government's promises that it was fully in support of supply management, threes successive trade deals undermined that important pillar of import control. I see this bill as just pretty much a legislative guarantee that, despite a government's best intentions and words, this bill is going to insert a legislative guarantee in an important act to ensure that our supply management sectors enjoy that solid protection.
With that I will conclude and again reiterate that New Democrats will support this bill. I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for bringing it forward. I look forward to seeing its successful passage to the other place.
1504 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to take a deep breath and start my speech at the end. I am sick and tired of hearing members claim that they support supply management and then telling us, in the same 10-minute speech, that no one supports this bill and that members should not vote in favour of it—
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 11:50:26 a.m.
- Watch
I will ask the member to start his speech again because his microphone was off.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was saying that I was going to take a deep breath before I spoke, to try to curb my emotions, and that I was going to start my speech from the end. I am sick and tired of hearing members claim that they support supply-managed farmers, that they think they are important, that they want to protect them and that they are committed to looking after them, but then refuse to actually protect them. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They cannot say they are going to protect farmers and not do it.
Then they wonder why the public is cynical about politicians. I am so sick of this. Last time, the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. We cannot expect the same result this time because perhaps not as many members of a certain political party, by which I mean the Conservative Party, will vote for it. However, I know there are some Conservative members who believe in supply management, so I would ask them to stick with us and vote with us. I know they understand that this is a good bill.
The government needs to stop sending farmers mixed messages by saying it will protect them and then not doing it. Neither farmers nor voters believe that anymore. I have some news for everyone: That strategy is not going to work anymore. It worked for decades, but not anymore. People want action. Supply management means the three pillars and a bunch of other things, but it is mostly about the vitality of our regions. This protects small businesses.
I believe it was the member for Dufferin—Caledon who said in his speech that other farmers wanted to export and did not support supply management. We in the Bloc Québécois support all farmers, and we support their choice of marketing model. We do this out of respect for the people who get up every morning to feed us.
The government cannot tell these people that it is spoiling them and that it respects them and at the same time say that it is afraid that if it has to renegotiate CUSMA and this bill has passed, it will not be able to give them any more. That is the pretext it uses for not voting in favour of the bill while still saying it will protect farmers. Come on. Does the government really think anyone is going to fall for that?
Seriously, I do not know how those people opposite sleep at night. Maybe it is by ignoring others and repeating their own talking points over and over in their heads. This bill is essential. It is important and extremely simple. It will exclude agricultural products that are subject to supply management.
I heard the member say that he was afraid that supply-managed agricultural products would be excluded during negotiations. That is exactly what this bill will do. He should not be afraid: That is the whole point of the bill.
We will adopt this bill because we are in the majority, and I expect the same thing to happen in the Senate. We will collaborate with our colleagues in the Senate to explain the merits of this bill to the other members and explain how badly farmers need it.
If the government continues to say that it is going to protect supply management and help farmers, but that it can hang onto them to use as a bargaining chip, that means that it is going to put them on the table during future negotiations. It already lopped an arm off our farmers, but next time, it will be a leg. How can they keep farming after that?
A supply-managed market is a balanced market in which the quantity produced and the price are controlled. According to carefully targeted market studies, in order to obtain a stable, reasonable price and a high-quality product, it is essential to control what comes in from outside. That is the third pillar, the third leg of the stool that the member from Montcalm was talking about earlier. The government needs to stop cutting off this third leg, because the stool will fall over. It will not work anymore.
What I am hearing from the Conservatives this morning is that they clearly intend to eliminate the supply management system, but little by little. They want to do it by lying to agricultural producers, saying that they love them and want to protect them, but they will lay them on the sacrificial altar as soon as they get the chance. I suspect the Conservatives' plan is to take away the system that our farmers put in place, to steal the value of their quotas. Do members know how much quotas are worth?
What the member for Dufferin—Caledon told supply-managed farmers across Canada, including those in his riding, is not to worry because they will quietly disappear. They will become pro-free trade and pro-big businesses converts.
What he does not understand, so I will explain it to him, is that all the small family farms come together to form one big company. That big company is created through solidarity, through joint marketing. This way, small businesses are assured of a stable, recurring income that they can use to innovate and make constant investments.
It is often falsely claimed that this encourages inefficiency, but that is not true in the least. Our farmers have lowered their greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. They have done amazingly well. They are still investing. However, by continuing to take market share away from them, the government is telling them that maybe they should stop making investments. It has the opposite effect. Basically, the government is telling them the same thing the member for Dufferin—Caledon was telling supply-managed farmers earlier. It is telling them to hurry up and sell their quotas while they are still worth something.
I apologize for not being as calm and collected as usual this morning, but when I hear things like this, I am outraged. It is baloney, it is pure nonsense. Members say one true thing and the opposite. It is preposterous. Farmers and the public are fed up with all this bullshit. We need the truth.
Oh, I cannot say that word. It just slipped out. I apologize.
1071 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 11:57:22 a.m.
- Watch
I would ask the member to be good enough to apologize.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, farmers and the public are sick and tired of getting messed around, to put it more politely and, I think, more acceptably.
I have said it again and again, but promises have to be backed up by action. This has happened more than once. How many motions have been adopted here? How many motions have been adopted in Quebec's National Assembly? They were always unanimous. In subsequent negotiations, however, market share was lost.
The member for Dufferin—Caledon talked about other agricultural sectors. This morning, I would like to speak to all farmers and let them know that I will protect all agricultural sectors. I hope they know it. If they are not convinced, they are welcome to contact me so that we can discuss the matter. As far as future negotiations and market developments go, I will respect their decision on export-oriented marketing. I believe in it.
I recently went on a trade mission with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to two different places to talk about international trade. I was there to represent farmers who want to export. However, this does not mean I have to work against the interests of my supply-managed farmers. Quite the contrary. I think both realities can coexist. In fact, they have done so very well since the 1970s. The problem is that the existing system is under attack.
It is time to get serious. I look forward to the vote. If anyone has an issue with my speech, I invite them to respond. I am willing to take feedback and even chat to anyone who wants to contact me. I would be glad to. It is vital to walk the talk. That is key. Some members are accusing us of being divisive, but nothing could be further from the truth. I just proved it. They are the ones who are being divisive by claiming that the bill will hurt other sectors. I do not believe that.
The WTO rules allow each state to protect certain key sectors. The United States does it, and so does Japan. Many countries do it, and we have the right to do it.
Some people have mentioned softwood lumber and things like that. Rolling over is not going to get us more respect. We need to stand up for ourselves.
Speaking of softwood lumber, I would like to remind this House that Quebec changed its public forest management system and it should not be affected by its American partner. Maybe the rest of the country needs to follow suit. Maybe Canada needs to take a stand.
I am asking members to support the bill. I am also asking members to stop using doublespeak. If they are against the bill, they should own that and say so.
467 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
- May/15/23 12:00:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:
(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;
(b) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and
(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:01:19 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing none, the motion is carried.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:04:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I move:
That in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before this House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:04:56 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:05:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in a situation, with increasing frequency, where the government seems completely unable to manage its agenda. While members of the House want to be able to debate legislation and bring their concerns to the floor of the House of Commons on behalf of Canadians, the government seems unwilling or unable to allow that debate to unfold. Here again, we have the government using the sledgehammer of time allocation. It does not matter if the official opposition agrees or does not agree with the bill; the government does not even want members to have their say.
Why is it with this, just like with the government's failure to appoint an interim or permanent Ethics Commissioner, that Canadians always pay the price? Canadians want members to be able to debate, and Canadians want officers of Parliament to be appointed in a timely way. In this case, we find ourselves unable to do that. Why is this the case?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:06:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak about the extensive study and debate, and indeed, amendments that have been proposed and deliberated on, for this particular piece of legislation.
There were 105 written briefs to the Senate committee, 50 hours of study of the bill, the oral testimony of 80 witnesses, over 306 amendments tabled between the Senate and the House committee, and 38 clauses amended as a result of this careful deliberation.
This bill has had extensive and robust debate and study, and now it is time for us to move so we can protect the environment for generations to come.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:06:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak about the extensive study and debate, and indeed, amendments that have been proposed and deliberated on, for this particular piece of legislation.
There were 105 written briefs to the Senate committee, 50 hours of study of the bill, the oral testimony of 80 witnesses, over 306 amendments tabled between the Senate and the House committee, and 38 clauses amended as a result of this careful deliberation.
This bill has had extensive and robust debate and study, and now it is time for us to move so we can protect the environment for generations to come.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:06:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, to hear the Conservatives complain about time allocation is incredibly rich given what we saw from the Harper government. When a government bill was being debated in the House for the very first time, the Harper government would give notice of time allocation on that same day. The Conservative Party has no leg to stand on when it comes to this particular issue.
Ultimately, this bill started its journey in the Senate. We are now at third reading. We are at a stage where members have acquainted themselves quite well with this bill. I think it has some very important aspects, and I am proud of how our team was able to strengthen the bill.
For this particular bill, with the ways the New Democrats strengthened it, it is important for the House to arrive at a decision so members can make their opinions known on it. Could the minister expand on some of the reasons for this?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:08:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite and the NDP for their very thoughtful collaboration on this piece of legislation. It has been extremely important to hear the perspectives of all members, but we appreciate the thoughtfulness of the proposed amendments and the collaborative way in which the party opposite has worked with the government to strengthen the approach.
When we pass this legislation, the outcomes we are all hoping for are better protections and a healthy environment for all Canadians. There are many stories across the country where Canadians' environmental protection has not been considered. In fact, as Minister of Indigenous Services, I have many examples I can and will share through this time period.
There are examples of communities with drinking water that has been irreversibly damaged and contaminated. There are long-standing health conditions relating to environmental contamination; this not only results in ongoing suffering and premature death but also millions, if not billions, of dollars spent to try to ameliorate that contamination.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, moments ago, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes was talking about things that Canadians want in terms of democracy and people having the ability to represent their constituents in debate.
Something else that Canadians want is an opposition that actually does its job; they want an opposition that comes into the House of Commons and does not only criticize and attack individuals all day long, but instead, tries to improve legislation and policy. They want an opposition that respects the fact that once a debate has gone through its natural course, it should eventually be voted on and not used as a bargaining tool to try to move absolutely anything in this House along.
Can the minister comment on the extensive work that has been done to this point? How much has taken place? Why is it important to move this piece of legislation forward now?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:10:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, there was more debate on this bill than there was for the budget implementation act. As I mentioned earlier, we had 105 written briefs, 50 hours of study of the bill through the Senate committee, the oral testimony of 80 witnesses, over 200 amendments tabled through the Senate, an additional 106 amendments tabled through the House committee, and 38 clauses out of almost 70 clauses amended. This really does show the level of debate.
The government was listening. There were reasonable and thoughtful amendments that were proposed by members opposite and supported by the government. Each day, Canadians across the country are having their environment degraded by the release of toxic chemicals. Extreme health hazards, which have very detrimental effects, are also being created in a number of other ways.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 12:11:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is kind of bizarre. We agree with this bill. We have indicated that we will support it. However, we are back at a place where the government cannot manage the proceedings of this place. If it could manage the clock and the calendar better, then we would not have the closure that we have here today. We talked about how this place should work. There is a belief I have and hold dear, which is that the more we can debate and ask questions about a piece of legislation coming through here, the better it is.
How does the minister justify moving closure on a bill that could be improved even more if we had the debate that is prescribed in this place?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
