SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 258 - Nov/29/23

Nov/29/23 5:04:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1803, 1804, 1808, 1805 to 1807 and 1809 to 1813.

22 words

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

Nov/29/23 5:04:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of opinions and thoughts on farms. Members might not be necessarily surprised. After all, I come from the Prairies, and I was born and raised in the Prairies. I have lived on Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. While in Alberta, I was a member of the Canadian Forces. I have grown a great appreciation for farms. How could one live on the Prairies for 60 years and not appreciate the value of our farms? I am going to get into some details on that, relatively shortly. I really want to focus on why this is. I put it in the form of a question to the member who brought forward the motion. Liberals in general are open to talking about the farming community. We understand the appreciation of agriculture and the importance it has not only to Canada but also to the world. Canada, in many ways, does help to feed the entire world. The types of products we produce on the Prairies and throughout Canada are second to none. No other country in the world has the diversity of product, not to mention the quality of product. Therefore, I understand and appreciate, as my colleagues do, the importance of our agricultural communities, our rural communities and the farmer. I say that because I wanted to focus some attention on the behaviour of the Conservative Party today and the disturbing pattern we are witnessing day after day. I suspect that most members who came into the chamber today did not want or expect the Conservatives to move yet another motion for concurrence in a committee report. That is what this is: a motion for concurrence. The motion is that we, in essence, talk about farmers, agriculture, and the industry as a whole that feeds off of it. Let us not forget that there was another very important issue we were supposed to be debating today. It was, in fact, Bill S-9. Bill S-9 is all about weapons of mass destruction. Canada plays a very important leadership role around the world, and one of the areas in which we play that role is the area of weapons of mass destruction. I remember the day Lloyd Axworthy brought the land mine issue to Ottawa. We had a worldwide ban and a convention came out of it. Bill S-9 deals with the chemical weapons convention, the listing of chemicals, and it would reinforce that particular aspect of Canada's role. Fortunately, it was brought in through the Senate because of the legislative agenda we are trying to get through. Even in some of the comments I heard from across the way in the previous two speeches, the members talked about the importance of affordability. Tomorrow and the following day, we will be talking about the fall economic statement because we understand the issues that are so critically important to Canadians. I want to tell my friends across the way that using motions for concurrence in committee reports takes away from the government's ability to get its legislation through. It is interesting. When I posed the question to the mover of the motion, his response was that it is up to the government to get things through. The government is trying to get things through. We were planning on bringing forward Bill S-9 today in the hope that we would be able to get that legislation passed because I do not think anyone will be opposing it. Now, we are losing a day to pass that legislation, so if we want to deal with Bill S-9, we will have to call it to the chamber again. Opposition members will say, “Who cares? It's not our problem. It's the government's problem.” If we cannot bring in items such time allocation, how can the government possibly pass legislation when we have an opposition party that is preventing the government from doing just that? We are talking about food for the world. I have heard members on the other side talk about trade many times. Members can think about Ukraine, the trade agreement Canada has with Ukraine, and the impact that has on food supply, processing foods and so forth. The Conservative Party, all its members, voted against that important piece of legislation, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The people of Canada understand and value the legislation, and they are not the only ones who want to see it pass. There is the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada, the politicians in Ukraine and members from every other political party, except the Conservative Party. The president of Ukraine came to Canada at a time of war and signed an agreement. The legislation was brought forward, and the Conservatives filibustered. They used the same tactic they are using right now with a concurrence report. Bringing in concurrence report after concurrence report, is limiting the number of debate days the government will have. Is this an attempt by the Conservative Party to prevent the Canada-Ukraine free trade debate from taking place at third reading? Does the Conservative Party not understand that there is legislation, such as the fall economic statement, that needs to be debated in the chamber? If they continue to bring in concurrence reports, they will continue to take time away from debating the legislative agenda. Many, including myself, want to see a number of pieces of legislation debated. This is not to take away from the issues the member is raising today concerning farmers and our agricultural community. As I said at the beginning, I am a very strong advocate for those two communities. I have given many speeches in the House, as I know my colleagues appreciate. Every week, when we are in session and in caucus, the rural agenda is there and being talked about. We understand and appreciate the needs of our rural communities, our farmers and our smaller municipalities, as well as how vital they are to Canadian society. Why did the Conservative Party do this? We will have another opposition day next week. We have maybe 12 more sitting days before the break. How many of those days will we be dealing with the fall economic statement? We have an opposition day next week. The number of days is shrinking, and if the intent of the Conservative Party is to prevent the Canada-Ukraine deal from getting to third reading and passing, I say shame on them. That is not the only legislation, but there is a lot of focus on it. The Conservatives wonder why we bring it up time and time again, and it is because we do not trust the Conservative Party. It has gone so far to the right. We see that attitude in the leader of the official opposition taking his party to a place where it votes in ways that are very hard to understand for one reason. We already heard two members stand up to speak to this issue, and they strictly talked about the carbon tax, as they referred to it, or the price on pollution. The Conservatives are using that as an excuse for everything they are doing in the chamber. It is reckless. That is what we are witnessing. We have a leader of the official opposition who is not in tune with what Canadians are asking legislators to do here in Ottawa. It is only a question of time before Canadians actually realize the destructive behaviour of the Conservative Party today. That is why I think it is important, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to amplify it and to ensure that Canadians know and understand what is in fact taking place, and that there are important things that need to be passed here. The report talks about infrastructure. Recommendation 1 is to associate infrastructure with trade. It highlights infrastructure and trade. No government has spent more and committed more on infrastructure in the last 50 or 60 years than the current Liberal government has, because we understand and appreciate the importance of having a healthy infrastructure so we can get our product to market, whether a local market or an international market. It is one thing to talk about it, but it is another thing to see the action. With the Liberal government, we have seen action supporting investment in Canada's infrastructure from coast to coast to coast. The Conservatives say “access” and “making sure”. Over the summer, a number of months ago, the former minister of transport was in CentrePort in Winnipeg, just outside my riding. It is a huge park, thousands of acres, strategically located near rail lines and a first-class long-haul trucking industry, the biggest in the province, possibly the biggest in the Prairies. There is an airport literally a couple of miles away. There is a great deal of focus on infrastructure and how we can get products to market. We see the agricultural community coming into CentrePort in a very real and tangible way. It is not that we do not want to have those types of discussions. That is why we have standing committees. The New Democratic member stood up and said that it was nice we were having a debate on agriculture in the chamber today. I would like to think that we have debates and discussions on agriculture on an ongoing basis, whether they are budget debates, throne speech debates or the numerous private members' bill debates that take place. One of the reasons we have standing committees is so we can actually look at and take a deeper dive into an issue. That enables, I believe, reports like the one we have today. With those reports, Canadians can get a better understanding of where the House of Commons or the collective parliamentarians would like to see the government of the day take some form of direction. That is what I like about the system. What I do not like is when reports are consistently used as a mechanism, through concurrence, to prevent debates from taking place on government legislation. That is very problematic. The Conservatives will say that it is the government's responsibility to bring forward the legislation. We are bringing forward the legislation; it is the opposition that is preventing the legislation from being debated. It is the opposition that is choosing the tools it has in order to filibuster legislation. Some members across the way are laughing. Our Ukrainian heritage community is not laughing; it is upset because it sees the games the Conservative Party of Canada is playing. That needs to change. I cited just one piece of legislation, but there are numerous ones. Even during the pandemic, with regard to financial supports to Canadians, we saw the Conservatives using concurrence as a way to prevent government legislation from moving forward. They used an excessive number of concurrence reports. They have the standard line: “This is an important issue; why would we not want to be able to debate the issue?" They make it sound as if the government were not being sensitive to the issue. I ask my Conservative friends across the way, if the issues were as important, from a Conservative perspective, as they try to imply to Canadians, why are they not using them as opposition day motions? They have plenty of opposition days when they get the entire day to be able to debate the issues they want to debate, just like yesterday, when they chose to debate the Senate and the behaviour of the Senate. It is rooted in the price on pollution, I must say, because the Conservative Party of today is very much infiltrated by individuals who are truly climate deniers. Maybe not all members of the Conservative caucus are; I suspect not. However, I do believe there is a preoccupation within the leader of the Conservative's party, which is, in fact, climate denial. The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of getting rid of the price on pollution. Think about it in terms of this particular report. In the report, members are saying that the price on pollution is scaring farmers away and that they are going to shut down and go elsewhere with their produce. During the last break week, I had the opportunity to go just north of Portage la Prairie to Roquette, a world-class pea processing facility. Did members know that the largest pea processing plant in the world is in the province of Manitoba? I can say that I am quite proud of that particular fact. The facility creates all sorts of opportunities for the farmers in the area. I am told it even has to bring in some yellow peas from other jurisdictions because it cannot keep up with the demand. The demand is going to continue to grow. The facility is actually diversifying, which is great news. It reinforces that the world is looking at Canada as a place to be able to invest in, and that includes our agricultural community. The role of the farmer is just as real today as it was in any day in the past. The innovators in our environment are often farmers. We do not give our farmers enough credit. Quite frankly, what I do not like is when they are used as a political tool. I was in opposition when the Conservatives got rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. Suffice to say, I really and truly believe that the Conservative Party needs to get its ship in order, whether with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or stopping the filibustering and the preventing of legislation from being able to pass. There is a minority government; that means there is an expectation that opposition members would also behave. There is nothing wrong with criticizing. I was in opposition for 20-plus years, so I understand that role. There is also a role in terms of being a little bit more creative in one's opposition.

2351 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Nov/29/23 5:24:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I know that there is someone watching who has been with me for 12 years. We work together in my office. It is Heather Kuntz' birthday today. I am not sure which one, but I want to say “happy birthday” to her in Regina. I will ask my colleague from across the way a question. He said one thing that I think is very true, which is that our farmers do not get enough credit for how well and how much they have innovated in their farming techniques. Does he not think they would be able to innovate even further and bring forward new technologies? For example, in Saskatchewan, we have zero-till, rotational grazing and crop rotations that keep our soil healthy and strong. They make it very, very rich so we can grow bumper crops with less water and less fertilizer. Saskatchewan uses 75% less fertilizer than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Does the member not think that if farmers had more money in their pockets and we moved forward with the carbon tax exemption bill, Bill C-234, that the money could go toward even more innovation? Like he said, our farmers are the ones who bring forward innovation. Why will the Liberals not get out of the way and make sure farmers can do that?

223 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 5:25:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish a happy birthday, and many more, to Heather in Regina. I believe that farmers, in many ways, lead in terms of innovations and making sure we have wonderful, successful farming in rural communities into the future. I applaud them to the nth degree for that. The issue I have is that the Conservative Party wants to chip away here and chip away there. Ultimately, let there be no doubt, what it really wants is to get rid of the price on pollution. Conservatives have said that and have been very clear on the point. It is kind of a dumb idea, I would suggest, but they are determined to put it into place. I have to defend the constituents I represent who actually get more money from the rebate than they pay. Eighty per cent get a larger rebate portion.

144 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/29/23 5:27:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's complaints about the fact that the House is not following the order of business each day. Then again, we are always happy to talk about farmers, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask him a very specific question. Recommendation 17 in the report we are discussing today highlights the importance of providing capital to our SMEs, our small businesses in general. We are talking about food processing at the moment, but we could extend this to businesses in general. Right now, the entire Canadian business community is asking the Liberal government for a one-year reprieve on the repayment of the Canada emergency business account. This is particularly necessary and urgent in the restaurant industry, as well as in agriculture. If my colleague has so much respect for the farming community, is he prepared to lobby within his party to give our small businesses the breathing room they need to survive and keep their doors open?

166 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 5:28:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, during the worldwide pandemic, the Government of Canada literally supported small businesses in virtually every sector to ensure their survival during a very difficult time. How we ensure that we can minimize the amount of hurt to small businesses is an ongoing issue. To pick up on what the member first spoke about in regard to how important the diversification of our agricultural community is, it is really important to the government. That is one of the reasons why we invest so much in our regional development agencies, knowing full well that they are in a great position to identify where we can expand and make sure diversification takes place. More processing is really important. I like to think of the pea processing facility just north of Portage Avenue as a good example of the diversification taking place. I think there are so many other examples that one could give, but the bottom line is that the government, virtually from day one, in 2015, until the present day with the fall economic statement, is there to support our farmers and our agricultural communities.

185 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Nov/29/23 5:29:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to narrow down a very troubling reality facing Canadians, the terrible reality facing workers. We know from recent reports, particularly reports throughout COVID, and reports before that, that temporary foreign workers often face circumstances that are simply undignified. We heard just recently that some temporary foreign workers have died. Some others have found themselves in situations where they are undocumented. There needs to be far more oversight. Ultimately, the government must implement the process that was promised to the workers: having a “status for all” commitment to ensure that a worker who toils the soil here in Canada, pays taxes and does everything right, and still finds themself in a position where the government does not accept them, will find justice. When will the government ensure status for all, for all the workers who give tirelessly to this country?

145 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 5:30:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that international workers play a critical role here in Canada in many different sectors of our society. It is also important that the federal government continue to work with provincial governments in particular and with departments of labour and other non-profit agencies to ensure the rights of these international workers and ensure they are not being exploited as much as possible moving forward. With regard to the member's policy announcement and the position of the NDP that international foreign workers or international students would be given automatic permanent residency status, that is not what we are saying as a party.

109 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/29/23 5:31:35 p.m.
Watch

Order. This is not a cross-debate. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. He needs to listen to the answer, whether he likes the answer or not. If he has other questions or comments, he should wait until it is time for them. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

51 words

Secretary

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Nov/29/23 5:31:35 p.m.
Watch

So you would rather have undocumented people.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 5:31:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I highly recommend that the member talk to the Minister of Immigration and share with him his thoughts.

20 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Nov/29/23 5:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadian farmers and agri-food exporters have made Canada the fifth-largest exporter of agricultural produce and agri-food products. The member mentioned the largest pea processing facility in this province. I appreciate that the manufacturing sector, including the agriculture-processing sector, has been in decline for the last 20 years. We need more manufacturing and processing, not only to be self-reliant but to export value-added products. I would like to know whether the member accepts that we need more processing for value-added exports.

89 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 5:32:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question. At the end of the day, the more value we can add into our products, the better. It means more jobs. It means more money. That is one of the reasons I am a very strong advocate of trade agreements. Canada is a trading nation. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and this government. It is nice that the Conservative Party, almost for all of the trade agreements, has been supportive of us signing them. There is one exception, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I am hoping we will see a somersault flip-flop and Conservatives will come back and support it at third reading. I think a number of Conservative members would like to see the leader of the Conservative Party change his mind and support that trade agreement. I hope he does.

154 words

Trading

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/29/23 5:33:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9

Madam Speaker, I see the parliamentary secretary is troubled that we are not talking about the Senate's bill, Bill S-9, on weapons of mass destruction, even though that was not a Liberal campaign promise. Would he not agree that, with two million people using a food bank every day and one in five families eating less food because they cannot afford it, it is more important for this House to be looking at solutions on how to address food insecurity, such as with this motion?

87 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/29/23 5:34:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely it is an important issue. That is one of the reasons we brought forward the fall economic statement, which, by the way, we will start debating tomorrow. Some try to minimize this particular bill, saying the chemical weapons convention is not important, but Canada does have an important role to play on this in the world, a leadership role. At the end of the day, it would have been nice to have that debate today and ultimately see that bill pass, but the agenda of the Conservatives seems to be to prevent legislation from passing and to bring in concurrence reports. They are targeting the Canada-Ukraine deal. They do not want to see that thing pass, and I say shame on them.

126 words

M. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/29/23 5:35:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this discussion. I want to get right to the substance of the debate because, as usual, I have a lot to say in a short period of time. This report looked at the possibility of increasing food processing capacity. I would like to bring the debate back to the main issue in this report, which was prepared during the COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when we were beginning to realize just how fragile our supply chain and our processing chain are. The purpose of the recommendations my colleagues and I made at the time was to tell the government that it needs to have a long-term vision. Let us try to take action for the next time. Let us try to improve our food resilience, our independence and our resistance to unforeseen events. First it was COVID-19. Then it was the war in Ukraine, which led to all kinds of problems. Now another conflict has broken out, and it will surely have additional repercussions. We have to be resilient domestically. That is the purpose of the recommendations. I would like to quickly go over those recommendations. The first recommendation addressed the urgent need to invest in the network of trade infrastructure, particularly transportation, to improve access to markets and to facilitate domestic transportation. That is fundamental. We are talking about a report from May 2021. Unfortunately, since May 2021, I have not seen much in the way of government action on trade. The government can complain all it wants that the opposition is holding up the agenda and that we cannot move forward. However, we could also move forward more effectively if real measures were proposed. I am thinking, for example, of our port capacity, of how container prices skyrocketed when the pandemic restrictions were in place and of how much difficulty we had shipping fresh food, whether it be fresh fruit, vegetables or pork. Speaking of which, when fresh pork from Quebec or parts of central Canada, like Manitoba, has to reach the Port of Vancouver, there is a problem. If the port is blocked, then there is a wait. This is a perishable product. It has a certain lifespan. This is such a major problem that most private insurance companies are opting out. We know that the private sector is there when there is money to be made. If there is no money to be made, then it will opt out. The risk became too big, and now producers are stuck paying exorbitant amounts for insurance. I think that there might be one company left that is willing to insure them. It is therefore vital that we take action now, before this all falls apart in five or 10 years. Let us not wait until our back is up against the wall, as we did with the labour force, for example. We can take action. This is very important. The report also contains recommendations for a targeted program. I think my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue will be very pleased to hear what I am about to say. It talks about a targeted program in collaboration with the provinces and territories, because each is protecting its jurisdiction in order to improve regional processing capacity, particularly regional abattoirs. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, along with me and my entire caucus, have come to the conclusion that we need permanent financial support for regional infrastructures that will ease the pressure on the large existing abattoirs. The goal here is not to shut down the large processing centres. Let us consider that three plants process 85% of Canadian beef. There is a problem there. If one get shut down tomorrow, the other two will not be able to supply enough product. There needs to be a secondary network. This also makes sense for our greenhouse gas reduction and climate protection targets. Does it make sense for cattle to travel all the way to Pennsylvania to be slaughtered and then come back as frozen meat? I do not think that makes sense. I am not the only one. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue can enlighten us even more, but I really do not understand why the government subsidizes transporting these animals instead of subsidizing a more local processing plant that would fit much more neatly into a holistic vision. That means being forward-thinking, having a vision. Unfortunately, I get the sense that this government is usually lacking in that department. The Bloc Québécois stands ready. We have a vision. We are here to protect Quebec's interests, but we do not want to hurt the common interest. We are working for the common interest. We would like the government to listen to our ideas. This is a very sensible one. Can the government give these facilities more financial flexibility? Another recommendation in the report was about increasing regional processing capacity. There are actually two separate recommendations in the same recommendation. Another recommendation talked about the local food infrastructure fund, or LFIF, which, at the time, had a maximum envelope of $25,000 per project. This subsidy can be given to small regional processing sites. During testimony in committee, some witnesses told us that the amount needed to be increased because it was not enough. They said they could not develop their businesses because there was not enough money in the fund. When I say that we sometimes produce reports without really knowing what they are for, this is actually a good example. With respect to this particular resolution, action has been taken and we are happy about that. The LFIF has been increased. The government announced an additional $70 million and said that projects worth between $15,000 and $120,000 would be approved. A number of my Bloc colleagues presented me with the files of people and organizations in our Quebec ridings who worked and allocated resources to submit an application under a clearly announced program that included specific benchmarks set by the federal government. However, they received a reply telling them that program uptake had been so overwhelming that the government had decided to process applications from remote and indigenous communities only, and for projects of up to $50,000. They were told that they would get a call back if someone decided to read their document which, knowing what government forms are like, was probably 350 pages long. Is that acceptable in a G7 country? I do not think so. People received this letter informing them about the $50,000 limit, yet the government website still says that applications for projects worth between $15,000 and $120,000 are welcome. That means that other organizations may be filling out forms just for the sake of it too. The government really likes paperwork. That is my complaint and I would like the government to take note of it. I hope that the parliamentary secretary is paying attention, because he spoke earlier about the importance of processing companies. That takes money. We have to invest money there. It is urgent. The next recommendation is on the fight against food insecurity. I just talked about northern first nations communities, which are very important, of course. It is not that they are not important, except that there are other people who have submitted a request. As far as this specific point is concerned, urgent action is truly needed. In 2015, someone promised us that every first nations community would have clean drinking water. I do not think that has happened yet and I have a hard time saying that without blowing my top because it is unacceptable in 2023. This same government also promised us a $1‑billion fund to reduce food insecurity at schools across the country. Where is that money? We recently adopted a motion calling for action. Where is the money? Our local organizations in Quebec are ready to receive that money. The great misfortune of Quebec is that we have 80% of the responsibilities, but just half of the money, which is here. Our money is here and it is stuck because things are not moving. I am asking the government to send us that money. We will do something with that money. We will feed our children. The recommendations also talk about more flexible regulations. That is particularly difficult in the slaughtering industry. Of course, food quality and safety must not be compromised. However, can we be flexible and diligent, dare I say intelligent, even? During this study, we heard stories of unreasonable inspections by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, even though the agency lacks resources. The government is incapable of ensuring decent and adequate border control, yet it is going to task three full-time inspectors with monitoring whether a drop of condensation will fall from the ceiling in four days' time. It sounds ridiculous, but it is all true. Can we improve efficiency? There are not a lot of resources available. One of the basic principles of economics is resource allocation. Why does one item cost more than another? Because it is scarcer. At any given time, human resources are very limited. I was talking earlier about the importance of having a long-term vision and acting for the future. I have mentioned this before in the House. I get somewhat upset by the fact that the government is so focused on the current labour shortage and in a bit of a panic, wondering what to do about it. I am no great scientist. I was a high school teacher in the 1990s. That is a long time ago, and I guess that dates me. In the 1990s, I was teaching my students the inversion of the population pyramid. I told them that we would have a labour shortage at some point. I cannot believe that no one in the government knew that in the 1990s. How is it that the government is only realizing today that it should have maybe done something? That is the problem with four-year mandates, which are often even shorter, and with parties being focused on elections and electioneering. Unfortunately, many political parties here are not setting a very good example right now. Many people are taking action in the very short term by repeating the same slogans that are not always true. I would ask those people to work constructively so that we can make progress. We talked about improving that, about implementing a system of internal control at the CFIA to prevent abuse. There could be an appeal system. Some of the other recommendations had to do with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE standard and the specified risk materials for beef slaughter. Right now, when an animal is slaughtered in Canada, producers have to dispose of a large portion of the animal, including the brain and spinal column, and that costs them a lot of money. It was fine during the crisis, but that was a long time ago now. The control measures were very effective and, at the international level, Canada has now obtained its World Organisation for Animal Health negligible risk status. That means that we could perhaps sit down and review all that. I am not saying we should just do whatever we want and throw it all out tomorrow morning, but can we sit down and look at this to try to improve our beef farmers' profitability? That would be an intelligent thing to do, and it would bring about quick change. Let us dig into that because it is vitally important. I have been saying this for four years, and I am not the only one saying it. Things have changed. The risk is negligible now. I think we could do it. We also need to realize that we are eating beef that was slaughtered in the United States, which does not have that standard. That is a disconnect we need to address eventually. Are we holding foreign producers to the same standard as our own? I could easily launch into a half-hour tirade about reciprocity of standards, so I will stop there and get back to that at the end of my speech. We also suggested incentives for creating industrial research and development clusters. In fact, this study is what made me realize, in a bit of a panic, the extent of our chronic underinvestment in Quebec's and Canada's agri-food processing system. The situation is appalling, frightening even. When I ask the government to try to take a long-term view of things, this is a damn good example of what I mean. Can we stop waiting for processing plants to close before implementing measures to foster investment, maintenance, balance? We just saw it happen again in Vallée-Jonction where a pork processing plant recently shut down. The reason we were given for this site's closure is that it was the oldest and had less invested in it. It was the most outdated and the least efficient. Why not make sure that our processing plants stay efficient? That would require encouraging the private sector. A tax credit might be the answer. It does not need to cost a lot of money. However, there has to be something. As soon as it becomes less profitable for these multinationals—in many cases, they are multinationals—to renovate the current site rather than shutting it down and opening a new one, there is no guarantee that these multinationals will reopen a site here. Let us not wait for that day. Maple Leaf is an excellent example. The company decided to open a site in the United States. We need to anticipate costs and be visionary. We have asked the government to make agri-food processing a priority, which is not currently the case. Yet the agri-food sector is the second-largest manufacturing sector in Canada. It is not that this sector is not important, but we seem to take it for granted, a bit like agriculture. We tell ourselves that they are there, they are good, they are going to do the work and there is no problem. The result is that we support them half as much as in the United States and four times less than in Europe. These folks get up every morning and go to bed very late at night to feed our people. I very humbly think that we should have a lot more respect for these folks. We should give them support when they need it. The produce sector is one that especially needs a little breathing room right now. I talked about it earlier. We asked for a one-year deferral of the repayment of the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA, loan. If the government does not want to take a blanket approach, that is okay. We agree on that. We asked the government to provide a help desk, a line of communication, and to look at this on a case-by-case basis. I can immediately say that this affects the entire restaurant sector. Last week, I made a public statement with the owner of the café La Bezotte, which is in my riding. If people are willing to make public statements to say that the situation is ridiculous and that our businesses need room to breathe, it is because they are in a tough spot. These people are courageous and I thank them. I thank Daniel for agreeing to do this. This raises public awareness and puts pressure on the government. People are not asking for much and it does not cost much. When I asked a question earlier I was given a nice, vague response about how the government has always been there for small businesses, that it will continue to be there and it has helped them a lot. I am told that $8 out of the $10 in assistance given out during the COVID‑19 pandemic came from the federal government. I think it goes without saying that this is because of the fiscal imbalance, which is huge. The means are there. That is not an answer. Many things have happened since then. There was the Ukrainian conflict, and the federal government took advantage of that to impose an additional cost on farmers by imposing a tax on Russian fertilizer. We all agree that we should take measures against the Russians, but we need to be smart about it. Perhaps if we had been smart about it, we would have avoided taking a measure that no other G7 country took and that is not even having any impact on Russia, given the size of our market. Russia is laughing at us right now. Our farmers are the ones who always end up paying the price. The worst part of all this is that, when we finally managed to convince the government to reimburse people, because it did not make sense for our farmers to pay for nothing, the government was unable to do so. It did not know who had paid what since, for example, there were co-operatives that had split the costs evenly. Instead, the government put the money into an on-farm action fund, which is fine except that farmers are paying for this program themselves and then the government wants them to be happy that it gave them a program. Come on. Let us be serious here. I talked about the labour shortage. We need temporary foreign worker programs that make sense. My colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean got a study going at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration about closed work permits. An NDP member talked about that earlier. Right now there are situations that do not make sense. This affects a very small minority of producers, but it does not make sense, and we cannot just let it go on. The problem is the closed work permit system, which is old and outdated. Let us switch over right away to the open, sector-specific work permits that industry is calling for so we can give farmers the flexibility they want. I have said a lot about long-term vision in my speech. I invite everyone here to reflect on the foreign worker mechanism. We need them when nobody else wants to do the work. This is a good solution, but can we keep operating like this for the next 50 years? Can we start creating pathways for these people? That was one of our recommendations, too. Can they bring their family members if they want to stay here and work? Can they become citizens of Quebec, or of Canada in the other provinces, so they can contribute to society and succeed? Not so long ago, we dedicated an opposition day to the issue of successful immigration. Our proposals are the product of careful thought, and we try to avoid moving inappropriate motions. Unlike some other political parties, our motions do not combine four or five irrelevant points with one important one. We focus on substance, and if members want to vote against our motion, they really need to give a solid reason. The motion on successful immigration was adopted in the House almost unanimously. It was a serious motion. Voting in favour of the motion is all well and good, but action must follow. That is another problem. I was talking about the local agri-food industry fund earlier. The government frequently makes big announcements, but there are often two problems. Sometimes there is not enough money, and by the time the 10th application comes in, the money is already gone. Other times, the requirements are so complex that the money goes unspent, and two years later, the government gets to announce the same money again and look very generous, when in fact it is simply recycling money it already announced. This vicious circle should be stopped. There is also the issue of Internet access in communities and cell phones in rural areas. If we want our businesses to modernize, they have to have the tools to do so. In my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, there are still municipalities where the mayor has to use pagers to reach his municipal councillors. Does that sound right in 2023? Come on. Then we ask our businesses to be efficient and make investments. Satellite-controlled irrigation and climate control systems are important. I hope someone asks me a question about reciprocity of standards.

3442 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Nov/29/23 5:55:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have signed many free trade agreements across the world, covering about 61% of the world's GDP. If there is one Canadian sector that uses all these free trade agreements, leverages them and takes advantage of them to export, it is the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector, which has made Canada the fifth-largest exporter in the world. I agree with the hon. member that we need more processing in the manufacturing sector than in the last 20 years across our economy. The share of our manufacturing sector is going down. One of the problems I hear from entrepreneurs who want to set up processing facilities is that we do not have the skilled workers available to work in processing facilities, from maintenance technicians to skilled workers to production workers. Does the member agree with this assessment?

141 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Nov/29/23 5:56:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, absolutely. In fact, that is one of the recommendations that I did not have time to talk about. The report recommended that in the agri‑food sector, the cap for foreign workers increase from 10% to 20%. I even proposed 30%, but the majority wanted 20%, so we put 20%. Then the government did it. That is one of the things in the 18 recommendations that was done. I say bravo, but it is likely not enough because we have to be smart and provide access to labour. My colleague is also absolutely right about international trade. A big part of our agricultural production is geared toward international trade. We need to support and develop this aspect. On the other hand, let us not forget that we have other farms that are not export-oriented. I am talking about supply-managed farms. Bill C‑282, which is currently in the Senate, received strong majority support in the House. It should be passed quickly. When I talk about having respect for our farmers and the way they work, it is because these people are essential and are the bedrock of our rural regions. This bill needs to be passed as soon as possible.

206 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/29/23 5:57:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very good speech. There is a slaughterhouse capacity problem here in Ontario and Quebec. The Liberals have done nothing to improve the situation. What are the most important recommendations, solutions, measures or anything else for improving this situation?

46 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Nov/29/23 5:57:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for that great question. I went over that earlier, but this will allow me to reiterate what I said. It is a public investment. It takes ongoing public support for the other small-scale sites. There are a lot of projects that exist already. There is no need to start from square one. I often say that we need to trust the people working on the ground. Let us make a list of the projects that already exist and launch an incentive program and ongoing support to keep it going. It is a societal choice that we need to make: Either we continue to pollute our planet by transporting our animals thousands of kilometres, or we are smart and we set up other sites that could also absorb any overflow if there is a major disruption, as in the case of COVID‑19.

153 words