44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/19/23 11:40:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the work done by the members for Montcalm, Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. They did an extraordinary job on this bill, which is crucial for Quebec.
This legislation affects one of Quebec's largest and most historically significant industries, specifically dairy production. Simply put, it seeks to protect the management of milk and other quotas to ensure that our producers are not negatively affected by political decisions that could threaten their future.
Of course, other countries will want to undermine supply management in order to get their products into our country. It is important to understand that the most protected sector in the world is agriculture. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, was signed in 1947. That agreement disappeared in 1994 to make way for the World Trade Organization, or WTO, precisely because it was getting harder to convince some countries to listen to reason when it came to protecting agriculture. There are reasons for that. The creation of the WTO did nothing to change the fact that virtually all countries want to protect their farmers.
For starters, we have to protect the industry that feeds us. It is vital to the national community that we protect the people who work hard to feed people. The job is not easy, we know. My father-in-law is a farmer. He is an amazing guy who is always working. Farming is his career and his job. This man, for whom I have a great deal of respect, puts food on people's plates. I often tell him that, when he looks out at everything growing in his fields, he can say that he is playing a part in fighting hunger. He is doing something phenomenal, not to mention tangible. The main reason is that we have to protect the people who feed us. It is a no-brainer. I am sure that people who are listening to me agree that these words make sense and that I speak the truth.
Second, farmers have to spend a lot of money to invest in their business. Costs are high. First, they need to buy the land, but then they also need to acquire livestock and the necessary tools. That takes a considerable investment. Investment means profitability. If producers invest in an area like milk production, for example, they have to make sure they get a return on that investment. They have to protect their return. If there is one sector on the planet where there are economic ups and downs, it is in agriculture, in farming livestock and its product, like milk. We need to ensure that the farmers who go to bat to buy equipment and invest in their businesses get a return on that investment.
The best way to ensure a return, and therefore ensure that they can continue their work, is to support supply management. It affords them predictability, which ensures a return on their investment. That is the basis of agricultural investment. That is how we protect farmers. That is how we assure those who invest millions of dollars that they, too, will have enough to eat, that there will be bread on the table. That is how we thank them for what they do. That is the second reason why supply management is important.
Third, we often talk about the regional economy, about how we need to find a way to stimulate the economy in the regions to encourage people to stay there. We want them to stay because they love their region, because they are locals and they want to stay. These people need to be able to stay where they are and where they want to be. If they want to stay in the regions, then we need to make sure that they can work and prosper there.
In a previous life, when I was in Quebec City and I was critic for economic matters, we used to talk about Investissement Québec. People would rack their brains trying to figure out what Investissement Québec's core mission was. It was thought that Investissement Québec's mission was to support the regional economy. That is what came up all the time. We were trying all kinds of ways to make that happen.
We see that supply management is a damned good way to stimulate the regional economy. After all, farms are very often located in the regions. This is an extraordinarily important reason for Quebec, given its vast territory. Gilles Vigneault said that villages were thrown into the regions. This is what was considered a feat for Quebeckers: Even in the toughest areas to succeed, there are people who hang on to their land and want to stay there because they love where they are. Supply management is a way of giving them a pat on the back and telling them to stay there, because they can work and make money right where they are. It is also worth remembering that these people hire workers and that these businesses create jobs.
Quebec is known as a nation of small and medium-sized businesses, or SMEs. We often boast about Quebeckers' innovative spirit and creativity, Quebeckers like Armand Bombardier, who is the perfect example of a tinkerer or a guy who messes around in his garage to come up with new ways of dealing with life on this land and making it easier. Quebeckers are very good at that. They are very good at being resourceful and creating SMEs.
Farms, especially dairy farms, are SMEs. I do not know the exact number, but Quebec has thousands of dairy farms. The advantage of these farms in Quebec compared to what is happening elsewhere in the world is that these dairy farms carry family names. Families own them. What does that mean? That means that they are handed down from father to son, that they are a legacy, that knowledge is passed down from generation to generation. We need to be extremely careful about preserving that, and that is what my colleagues have done. I am very proud of that.
When I go around my riding or elsewhere in Quebec, people ask me if the Bloc Québécois is working on anything special. We immediately tell them that we are working on protecting supply management, among other things. Everyone thanks us for that. They tell us to keep up the good work and not to give up.
I have to commend the other parties for doing their part. I have to say, there is no need to be any more partisan than necessary. If this bill ends up getting passed, it will be thanks to the other parties too, and I thank them for that. I hear them. They seem to be on the same page. That is not always the case, but it needs to be acknowledged when it happens. In closing, I would say this: Long live farmers, long live the producers who feed us. Without them, we would not get far.
1190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:55:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I just said in English, what we are seeing are tactics being used to slow down the work of the House. We are reaching out to the opposition parties in Parliament. For this bill, I am sure that we have the support of not just the NDP, but also of the Bloc Québécois and several Conservatives, because it is good public policy. That is exactly what we are doing.
I would point out to the hon. member that we also worked with the provinces and with Quebec, which passed a similar bill in late March of this year. We are harmonizing our efforts with those of Quebec. That is a good thing. It will be a good thing for all of Canada because the provinces will be able to work with the federal government to tackle certain practices, such as money laundering.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:57:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the frustration that many Canadians and many parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle share for the horrible delay tactics being used on the other side and the inflation of every single point becoming the end of the world.
This is a critical bill. It would help us in the fight against money laundering. It would help us in the fight against corruption. As the hon. member mentioned, it even helps us in the fight against Russian oligarchs. It would create a register that shows beneficial ownership, which is who is really behind the ownership structure of a company, such that we can then move forward, if necessary, to use that data, whether it is for the fight against money laundering, terrorism or anything else when the corporate structure is being used as a sham.
It would also allow us to protect whistle-blowers, who expose these kinds of measures. The legislation would basically create a best-in-class structure to mimic the best practices in other countries. It aligns with the best practices at the international level and with emerging best practices at the Canadian level, such as that in Quebec I mentioned a moment ago. We would be able to co-operate more easily with the provinces by creating this register, which would give access to law enforcement agencies and other agencies while still protecting the privacy of Canadians.
It is a good thing moving forward. There is widespread agreement and critical acclaim for this bill. We should just be getting it done.
260 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:30:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the only thing the minister and the Prime Minister are doing for the cost of groceries is raising taxes on food. They are promising a new, second carbon tax that will apply in Quebec, despite the fact that Quebec is the greenest province and perhaps even the greenest place in the world.
Now the Liberals, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, want to impose a tax of 20¢ per litre on farmers and consumers, which will increase the cost of food.
Will they axe the tax so Quebeckers can afford to eat?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:00:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister in power, Canadians have never been in worse financial shape. After eight years of this Liberal government, nearly half of Canadian families say they could not afford an unexpected $500 expense. What great solution did the Liberals come up with? They are charging an extra 20¢ tax on every litre of gasoline that Quebeckers buy. This will cost Quebec families $400 or more on average. That is outrageous.
Will the Liberals get out of the way instead of making things worse for Quebec families?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:03:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois continues to monitor the forest fires near Lebel-sur-Quévillon and elsewhere in Quebec. We stand with everyone affected.
The fire in my region is growing. The forecast is for 30 degrees Celsius and higher this week, without any rain until Sunday. People are worried. Our businesses are also worried. They are worried that nothing has been put in place to cover their losses. On Monday, the government committed to doing more to support the communities affected. What does the government plan to do for the regions affected in Quebec, including Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Nord-du-Québec?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Of course, our hearts go out to all the first responders who are helping in the affected region, as well as elsewhere in Quebec and Canada. We are keeping a very close eye on the forest fires. We are working directly with the province. We are in constant contact to make sure they have everything they need. At the province's request, we approved the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to assist in the efforts. We also have firefighters who came from all over the world. We are all working together to fight the forest fires.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:05:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for offering a different perspective on forest fires. We have to realize that climate change has a direct impact not only on forest fires, but also on floods and tornadoes. We have brought in the Canadian army to help. We have formed a coalition with foreign countries. We also have a consultation and working group with the province of Quebec that meets every day. I had the opportunity to meet my counterparts in Quebec City as recently as this month. I can assure members that we are working together and that Quebec is doing a very good job on the ground.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:08:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are facing a cost of living crisis. In my riding, the number of people using food banks has never been so high. The price of gas is through the roof and families in Beauce are hurting.
On July 1, things will only get worse. In Quebec, the second carbon tax will add $436 to every family's burden, on top of the goods and services tax. This measure will hinder everyone's ability to get to work and, more importantly, to put food on the table. Will the government finally see the light and cancel the second carbon tax?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 5:31:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely important question.
I mentioned earlier that nearly 500 media outlets and newsrooms had closed down. These were media outlets across the country, both in urban centres and in the regions. They were in ridings like my colleague's, which we had the opportunity to visit together. We had a great time doing that. In fact, I bought several things in his riding to support the local economy.
There is a direct impact. There are regions where there is no media reporting the news at all. This shows a lack of respect and is deeply undemocratic. It is concerning when a region does not know what its member of Parliament is doing in Ottawa, what its member of the National Assembly is up to in Quebec City, or what decisions its municipal councillor is making. These businesses must be allowed to resist, and even to rebuild, so that Quebeckers and Canadians have access to free, independent and unbiased news. This is fundamental.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is never a dull moment in the House. It truly is incredible. There is always some event or other that grabs our attention.
I am very happy Bill C‑18 has reached this stage. I am happy, but I can promise my colleagues that there are an awful lot of people at media outlets in my riding and pretty much everywhere in Quebec, not to mention everywhere across Canada, based on our conversations with stakeholders, that will let out a big sigh of relief when we finally pass Bill C‑18.
I would humbly like to dedicate my speech to the 1,300 workers in the news sector whose jobs were cut at Bell Media last week. We talked about it here in the House. I would like to spare a thought for two of them. I am sure that many of my colleagues have some in their ridings throughout Quebec and Canada.
Martin Brassard, a journalist with 35 years of experience at Bell Media, in my colleague's riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, lost his job to the cuts. Back home in Drummond, Louis‑Philippe Harnois‑Arel, a talented young journalist full of potential and promise who worked on the Bell-owned Noovo news desk, was also among those who lost their jobs because of these cuts.
Mr. Speaker, you may not have had a chance to read today's news yet, but in today's Le Devoir, Boris Proulx reports that my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood hinted that Bell's decision to cut 1,300 jobs and close six radio stations may have been part of a plan, made in cahoots with the government, to force the adoption of Bill C‑18 this week.
I wondered what kind of movie script we were playing out. Have we really got to the point where we believe that a company will fire 1,300 people just because we want to push through a bill that is long overdue and that was obviously going to pass in the coming days or weeks anyway?
Honestly, I think that is going a little overboard with the conspiracy theories. I wanted to say it. I really admire my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood. I sit with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which we co-chair. I know that he loves the media industry and that before becoming an MP, he had a career in the media, as did I. He and I will definitely have an opportunity to talk about it again.
To provide some context, the media, and especially the news media, has been struggling for many years. Facebook and Google in particular appropriate the news stories, the news content, without paying royalties or compensation for the material produced with hard work and passion by newsrooms.
In the early 2000s, red flags were already being raised regarding the presence of the web giants, the major corporations that were taking up more and more space on the Internet. The government decided at that time to exempt them from the Broadcasting Act, to exclude them from those regulations. Perhaps the government was short-sighted. I do not want to criticize the decisions made back then, because they were based on the information available at the time, but I think the government could have shown a little more agility. The government may not have given itself sufficient freedom to re-evaluate its position over time.
For years, the news media in particular, but also the cultural industry, have been sounding the alarm and urging caution because these giants were taking up more and more space, and warning that the space taken by these giants was hurting them, eating into their revenues and putting jobs at risk.
That is exactly what has happened over time. Successive governments were warned, but no one ever bothered to lift a finger or consider whether something should be done for the news media and the cultural industry.
As I said earlier, I was in the media before switching to politics. I also worked in the private sector, always with some connection to advertising. For years, I had a front-row seat to the impact this new player in the advertising world was having on the market. For example, representatives would come to us to sell us advertising and explain that it was more profitable for us to buy advertising space from them than from the digital platforms, even though the digital platforms were offering rock-bottom prices compared to traditional media. Obviously, it was very tempting for all kinds of companies to choose the option of switching to digital media, to Google and its ilk.
Today, more than 80% of advertising revenue is generated online. The market has been cornered primarily by Google and Facebook, which, again, pay no royalties. They pay nothing to the people who produce the content. They get to monetize that content and use it to sell their advertising.
On top of that, they collect data. We know that data is even more lucrative than advertising. They are really raking it in and not leaving anything for anyone else. Journalists are slowly seeing their work picked up by digital media, and high-quality reporting by talented journalists is ending up being shared on Facebook or Google in search results. Not a penny goes back to them for that, and not a penny goes back to the media that paid to produce it.
This makes no sense to me. We urgently needed to address the calls from news media and implement legislation that would impose not specific amounts or a payment, but rather a framework for negotiations. Bill C‑18 does not tell companies that they have to pay a certain amount. What Bill C‑18 does is tell companies that they have an obligation to negotiate in good faith within the legislated framework. That is what Bill C‑18 is all about.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that this will give one party an advantage over another. It is going a bit far. I think this bill could likely be improved and it will not solve all of the problems. That is obvious. The news media have fallen so far over the past 10 or 15 years that Bill C‑18 alone is certainly not the solution. However, it is definitely a step in the right direction. We are certainly sending the right message to the web giants by telling them that they cannot cannibalize our news outlets' content and our cultural content.
It is urgent that we pass this bill and it is urgent to see what impact it will have so that we can then put measures in place to help media outlets—
1147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 7:31:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, I helped analyze this bill. Obviously, it is a very important bill, considering that it aligns with the provinces' legislation, as my colleague pointed out. I would like to ask him a question.
My colleague mentioned Bill 78, which was adopted in Quebec in 2022 or 2021, with respect to the beneficial ownership registry. I would like him to tell me how the legislation we are about to pass aligns with Bill 78. Obviously, no one can object to the value and importance of catching fraudsters, who are unfortunately present in Canada, and more so in some provinces than in others. I think that fraud is a major problem in British Columbia, although it exists in Quebec too.
As a law-abiding business person who follows the rules, I agree with the importance of laws that help us catch fraudsters. I would like my colleague to talk to me about the importance of ensuring that the two bills are interoperable.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his intervention and his hard work in committee standing up for the interests of Quebec. We do not always see eye to eye on what is best for Quebec, but I think that we are certainly strong voices for standing up for these interests.
As members know, in February 2020, the Government of Quebec announced its intention to create a registry. Bill 78 was introduced in the National Assembly in June 2020 and was passed in December of the same year. To answer my colleague's question, there were provisions to create this registry of beneficial owners and make it public.
What are the challenges involved in bringing in such a registry and harmonizing it with those of the other provinces? That will become clear over time. If we are careful and create legislation based on what the provinces have already created, then we are more likely to achieve harmonization. There will no doubt be some bumps along the way, but solutions might present themselves.
I think that in a context like this, the provinces have jurisdiction. It is essential that the federal government build on what the provinces are doing and not fight what the provinces are doing. I think that is one of the intentions. Obviously, in Bill C‑42 before us, information sharing and transparency are fundamental.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C‑42, if we were to talk to our constituents today about money laundering and ask them what it is, how it works and how to stop it, I am sure they would have fairly clear and strong opinions about it.
However, some would think that we are still living in the time of Al Capone and that money laundering is actually done through laundries. Times have changed, but I will come back to that. Everyone would agree that money laundering is unfair and unethical. It is unfair to honest workers, to those who start and run honest businesses and pay their taxes.
It is unfair to all those who see that their health care system is struggling for various reasons, but I will not get into that. It is unfair to all those who are wondering how many billions of dollars a year are not going into the government coffers in Canada because of money laundering and whether those billions of dollars could be used to improve the health care systems in Quebec and the other provinces. These people are right to wonder about those things. They are right in thinking that it is unfair for some people to fly below the radar and launder the proceeds of crime or even just money that was not declared. Everyone would also agree that the governments need to do more, be stricter and put in place laws to better control money laundering.
Bill C‑42 is a step in the right direction. This bill amends the Canada Business Corporations Act while respecting what is already in place in Quebec and the Canadian provinces, while respecting the agreements already reached between Quebec and the Canadian provinces, which is certainly a good thing.
Bill C‑42 also amends the Access to Information Act, the Income Tax Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1. A number of laws are being amended, but there is one that is not, specifically the Criminal Code. Perhaps we need to think about that, and I will come back to that.
As I was saying, when we talk about organized crime, people often think of Al Capone, outlaw biker gangs, street gangs and the various mafias that exist today. However, we forget that criminals can be found outside of the groups I just named. There are also white collar criminals who often fly under the radar. However, their sources of income are not necessarily any more legitimate.
As I said, some people may still think that laundering money requires a laundromat. The many ways of laundering money have been modernized, and it is important for our laws to be modernized as well. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the days of Al Capone, but money laundering is as lucrative as ever. It may be more insidious, but it is no less lucrative for criminals. It is a different story for our society, however.
In the U.S. alone, an estimated $300 billion per year is generated by illegal activities. This amounts to about $1,000 per U.S. resident. In Canada, the same $1,000 would add up to $40 billion in illegal activities unaccounted for in Canada and absent from the treasury. This $40 billion is only $14 billion more than Quebec and the Canadian provinces are requesting in health transfers.
That is a huge amount of money. Let us imagine what we could do by regulating this.
Transparency and the obligation of transparency are excellent means of countering organized crime. This is what Bill C‑42 proposes. If forced to name themselves or be included in a registry, people and businesses that want to launder money will perhaps think twice before trying to do it themselves or hiring investors whose purpose is to launder money. No self-respecting company wants to see its name and reputation dragged through the mud. It takes a long time to build up a reputation, but not long for it to be torn down.
However, the current law only mentions directors. Only directors can be named. Even if all the saints in heaven are sitting at the boardroom table, a company will not be cleaner or more legal if the investors and owners are demons from hell. The ideas will not be any better and the money will not be any less criminal. Naming the owners explicitly in the registry will remove the temptation for criminals to invest in businesses.
What is happening right now? We often learn about scandals from whistle-blowers. Unfortunately, they may be taken to court, have their lives threatened or, in some cases, even be imprisoned. We need to ensure that these whistle-blowers are protected because they are valuable to society.
Today's crime requires the collaboration of professionals who are very familiar with the flaws in the system. Those flaws allow them to help criminals to launder money. One of the flaws in Bill C‑42 is that it does not cover the people who knowingly help criminals launder their money or those who are forced to do so. That is an improvement we need to think about making in a future bill.
Right now, I also see that, if a company commits an offence, then it has to pay a fine of $100,000. If they refuse or fail to add certain names to the registry, then they may be fined a maximum of $100,000. For some companies $100,00 may be a lot, while for others it may be very little. It seems like a rather arbitrary amount to me. I think that perhaps we should look at other ways of calculating the fine. Perhaps, instead, the fine should be based on profits declared. We should look into that. However, as I have already said, this is still a good start.
This bill, while not perfect, is an excellent step towards greater transparency and greater honesty, and it will allow Canada to be a role model rather than a dunce. I also want to say again that this is an excellent example of co-operation rather than intrusion into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, which is quite exceptional these days. However, it is a good idea.
The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, despite some minor flaws that can be corrected over time.
1093 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 8:29:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, by interoperability we understand the connections and interplay between the provincial laws and the federal law that enable them to work together. It is imperative and fundamental that these laws can work together so that the work done upstream or downstream—whether at the federal or provincial level—can be constructive and effective, particularly against money laundering.
I think my colleague is right, and I thank him for that. I must say publicly that my colleague is a very fine individual who does great work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology and who always makes an effort. As he said earlier, we do not always agree. However, in general, I think his arguments are geared towards the common good of Quebec and Canadian society as a whole. That is what we are arguing for as well. To answer his question, I think it goes without saying. Everyone should realize that this is really something that should be interoperable.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 8:32:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question.
To move society forward, we must move bills forward, be it at the federal or provincial level. I realize that the registries are all harmonized at 25%. We are fully aware of that, but, in moving amendments like the one meant to lower the ownership threshold to 10%, we have made people think, not only in the House, but also at the provincial level.
In doing so, we could perhaps improve the registries to ensure that all the information could be collected more effectively, both at the provincial and federal levels, so as to eliminate, once and for all, money laundering, tax evasion, and related crimes.
The tighter the measures across Canada, the greater the chance of limiting the damage. I am an entrepreneur and I regularly consult the Quebec registry. I will be consulting it again soon, because my daughter will be taking over for my associate in my company. I will be required to have a notary make the change at the IGIF, the institute that records all the information in a registry. We will record my company's new shareholder, my daughter. Actually, it will just be my daughter and me. That is very important. We each hold 50% of the companies' shares, but there could have been several shareholders, and the threshold could have been 10% instead of 25%.
In our case, it does not matter, because we are not fraudsters. I remember that my colleague said that there are companies that own multiple companies. It becomes a sort of puzzle. It would have been more obvious to have a 10% threshold rather than a 25% threshold.
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
