- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to speak to Bill C-280, which was introduced by the member for York—Simcoe. He sits next to me here in the House, and he is certainly not afraid to make his voice heard when it comes time to defend our produce growers. The Bloc Québécois is pleased to join him in his efforts.
Many members of the Bloc Québécois would have liked to sponsor this bill. I am thinking, for example, of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé or the member for Salaberry—Suroît. I, too, could have introduced this bill, because there are a lot of produce growers in my riding of Mirabel. The bill could have also been introduced by the member for Joliette or the member for Repentigny. In short, we all care a lot about this issue.
I therefore want to thank my colleague. There are some nice moments in Parliament when we can say that we are working together to do important things. Perhaps this should have been done sooner. This also reminds us of the importance of private members' bills, because they are inspired by what we see on the ground, by the people and businesses in our ridings. It reminds us of the fundamental work that members must do on the ground. I truly commend my colleague and, obviously, he is invited to come visit the maple capital of the world, Mirabel, any time he likes.
Produce growers, meaning fruit and vegetable producers, are still facing major challenges that continue to grow. We have talked about production costs, the cost of fertilizers and raw materials, and the declining demand for certain niche products as people struggle to afford things that can sometimes be perceived as luxuries at the grocery store.
We have talked about the Conservatives running deficit after deficit when they were in government. Things went from bad to worse under the Liberals. They are the kings of deficits. We have talked about bargaining power. Sometimes, small producers have to negotiate with resellers.
Bad weather is also a factor. I met some produce growers this summer as part of the Canada summer jobs program. I visited some businesses. I met Léanne and Vincent from the Entre Ciel et Terre farm in Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, Stéphanie from the Complètement légume farm in Saint‑Augustin, and Cinthya from Tierra Viva Gardens in Saint‑Augustin.
As we walked around the plots, they told us that they had lost 100%, 50% or 75% of this or that crop because of the rains. These people do not make a lot of money. They are true artisans. This serves as a reminder, and we cannot stress this enough, of the need for compensation programs here in Ottawa. However, that file is not moving forward quickly.
We can talk about the difficulties associated with climate change, bad weather, labour shortages, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the issue of temporary foreign workers, which creates challenges for our businesses. Then, there is foreign competition, obviously.
It is important to protect these companies when they sell their produce to resellers. How does the current system work? The member for York—Simcoe helped me gain a better understanding of how it works when someone is a fruit and vegetable grower.
Say that an American grows apples and sells them to a grocery store, to a reseller. If the grocery store goes bankrupt, this American has protection. He is registered as a supplier and, if the grocery store goes bankrupt, the government recognizes the fact that, since the supplier has not been paid, these fruits and vegetables belong to him and he is immediately reimbursed. That is the American system. Until 2014, Canadian and Quebec producers benefited from this system because they could sell their produce in the United States. If they sold to a grocery store in the U.S. and the grocery store or chain went bankrupt, they could get reimbursed the same way. This meant that we were relying on the Americans to protect our own producers.
In 2014, the Americans looked at what Canada was doing and found that Canada was in bad shape, that it had a terrible approach. They realized that their producers would not be protected if they sold their produce in Canada. If a Canadian grocery store or reseller went bankrupt, the producers would not get paid unless they went through an extremely costly process, which no small producer would go through if they could avoid it. Logically speaking, our own farmers were not protected either. The Americans told us to wake up, smarten up and protect our farmers and theirs so that there could be some sort of reciprocity.
In 2014, when the Americans tried to clue us in and told us that they were sick of protecting our farmers for us, they thought this would make the Canadian government sit up. They thought they were alerting Canada to take action. What has happened since? Cue the crickets, because nothing happened. The federal government did nothing. Now our farmers are no longer protected either in the United States or here at home. That is tough.
In 2016, we had a new Prime Minister who said, “Canada is back”. That was two years later. He went to the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada and promised to get Canadian farmers back into this U.S. program, which would require Canada to adopt certain measures. Then the same old thing happened that always happens with the federal government when things are urgent: it waited and waited and waited.
Today, a courageous MP decided he would table these changes in the government's place. All of us members who have farmers in our riding are proud of that. We are proud to support him. We think this bill should have been fast-tracked directly to the Senate. We think there should not have been any nonsense. We think that there has been enough nonsense since 2014, and this process should have gone faster.
Right now, if our farmers want help, there are mechanisms. For example, in the United States, they have to file suit. There is a mechanism requiring them to pay a deposit worth twice the amount of the claim. They do not have the means to do that. The idea is to deter them so they never get paid for their fruits and vegetables and the products they sold to a reseller. It is disrespectful to the farmers who feed us and feed our cities. I want to stress that part for those who do not represent agricultural ridings. We are all connected to those farmers in some way.
Not only is it disrespectful, but it is also completely out of touch with the reality of being a farmer. Farmers have plenty to do without having to go to court, hire lawyers and waste their time on administrative procedures. Farmers are on the ground, dealing with all the problems I listed. They are in the fields, the orchards and the greenhouses. They take care of their businesses and their workers. They deal with temporary foreign worker applications while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada takes its sweet time and the federal government does nothing to make the system better. That is what they do.
This bill will make their lives easier. It is going to restore justice. It is going to reduce the risks they bear in one of the riskiest sectors on the market. As we can see, it is getting harder and harder to attract new farmers, because it is not easy work. I want to thank the bill's sponsor for making all this easier for our farmers.
The bill will make the buyer of these products liable for the value of the shipment. The shipment will not belong to the buyer until the invoice has been paid. There will be a kind of priority list so that, if the person who has ordered agricultural products but has not paid their invoice goes bankrupt, the producer will be assured of getting paid without much trouble.
Right now, the system says that farmers have the right to get paid. Fifteen days after the bankruptcy, they have the right to recover the goods that were sold 30 days before. Do members see how little sense that makes for the agricultural industry? If any member of the House is opposed to this bill, I would challenge them to eat a 45-day-old salad or some withered old strawberries or blueberries. They can do it in the lobby and I will film it.
Under the current system, what we are telling farmers is to take back their rotten produce. That is how we are treating them. The current system is rotten. It needs to be changed. We need to move forward on this. This bill needs to move forward. The Senate needs to pay close attention to this so that this bill is passed quickly.
1533 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:30:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, many of our competitors that produce agricultural commodities are subject to similar tax measures in competing countries. What I tried to tell my colleague earlier in my speech, not my question, is that we recognize the impact on farmers, so we want targeted measures.
What my colleague forgot to mention is that the carbon tax applies to markets in general. We care about farmers, and we are sensitive to the problems they are dealing with, which is why my colleague is indirectly asking me whether we should abolish the tax for all industries, including western Canada's oil industry, which is the most polluting of all.
We need targeted measures. That is the problem with the Conservatives, and that is the problem with their motion. They are better at changing the subject than they are at identifying problems.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:27:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I appreciate him.
I welcome the fact that Valero Energy refines Canadian oil for domestic use. This further confirms that we do not need to increase production for export. I thank him for pointing that out. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that most days.
Second, they need to understand that abolishing the carbon tax in provinces that are not environmentally responsible creates unfair competition with producers of various goods in other provinces that do pay their carbon tax. Conservatives love competition until it involves oil.
Third, I would like to say hello to Claude, a member of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Sainte‑Scholastique. At a meeting two weeks ago, he thanked me for our support for Bill C‑234, which addresses the cost of propane used for drying grain. I want to tell him that I am very much looking forward to visiting him at his farm.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:15:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
Mr. Speaker, I went to the cafeteria on the first floor yesterday to get a grilled cheese, and I was really hoping to see you there. You are very charming and I really appreciate you. In the end, upon reflection, it was just as well that you were not there, because I ran into a Conservative member who spilled a coffee on his pants and found a way to colourfully blame it on the carbon tax.
I thought to myself, yes, that is obviously the source of all evil. I knew today was going to be a Conservative opposition day, so I made a bet with myself that the Conservatives would move a motion to give the bogeyman a new name, the carbon-tax man.
I read the motion last night, and I am pleased to say I was right, because that is essentially what this is. This entirely predictable motion portrays the carbon tax as the source of all evil and its abolition the solution to every problem under the sun. This is not really a motion about buying power or the price of food. It is not really about helping our farmers. This motion is further evidence that the Conservatives are trapped in their ideological cage, an ideology that says abolishing the carbon tax is the only way to fight climate change and make a transition. It is an ideological cage, and they are imprisoned inside it. Public debate is also being held captive, but the premise is false. It is false to say that this is the only solution.
The Conservatives are talking about our farmers. I would like to talk about farmers in the Lower Laurentians. The Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA, recently held a convention in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I went to the UPA convention and talked to farmers. They thanked the Bloc Québécois for supporting Bill C‑234, which gives them a little GST relief on fuel for their tractors, agricultural equipment, propane and grain drying. They applauded our responsiveness, our pragmatism and our openness. They recognize that and told me so. That is always good to hear.
Instead of proposing a targeted approach, they are engaging in a generalized attack against the infamous carbon tax, which does not apply directly to Quebec, because Quebec has a cap-and-trade system. The basic principle of these systems is to increase the price of inputs or goods that pollute, while at the same time returning the tax-generated revenues to households. The relative price of these goods will be higher because they pollute more, but, in return, people will get help with their purchasing power. In the long run, it means that people will choose inputs and goods that pollute less. However, for these changes to be made, we must be realistic. There also needs to be a vision for the long-term transition. We must give people more options. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are offering that. That is why we are still stuck in our current situation. Bloc Québécois members are realists. We think it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time without getting stuck like the Conservatives.
This is why we supported the part of their motion that deals with agricultural fuels and which is the object of Bill C‑234. That is why we support the elimination of the tax on propane used to dry grain. At the UPA central union in Sainte-Scholastique-Mirabel, they looked me in the eyes and told me that it was important. However, that is the object of Bill C‑234, so the Conservatives do not need to waste time with their motion.
With respect to fertilizer, I would like to commend the extraordinary work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I myself participated in meetings where the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, our agriculture critic, had gathered everyone around the table, including farmers. There were meetings with firms to ensure that fertilizer supply contracts, which had been signed before the war in Ukraine, are not subject to sanctions. These honest farmers had the right to get their fertilizer at a predictable price. We were there for them.
The issue of transportation is important, because that is where we will have cut emissions the most over the next 10, 20 and 30 years, if we exclude electricity generation itself in most provinces. We have adopted a smart, focused and temporary approach that is compatible with the transition and shows compassion for the people who pay. This helps taxi drivers, truckers and those who are temporarily affected by the vagaries of the geopolitical tensions that we are currently experiencing.
I would remind our Conservative colleagues that the price of oil is currently determined by a cartel, by their friends in Saudi Arabia and their friends in Venezuela, who are communists. This is OPEC+, which includes Russia, which, again last week, decided to cut production to keep prices high, to the great delight of Alberta's public finances.
That is why we supported Bill C‑234. If we must point the finger at a party that does not support farmers, it is the Liberal Party. When we voted on Bill C‑234, I was there and the Bloc Québécois was there for farmers from Quebec and the whole country. I was the first of 338 members of the House to say on social media that even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had voted against farmers. The central unions of the Union des producteurs agricoles noticed that.
The reality is that we must embark on a transition; this was not decided on a whim. The Conservatives have never tabled a motion that would allow us to assess and appreciate how we can embark on a transition that would reflect the ambitions of the west. They are still fixated on the carbon tax.
The International Energy Agency, however, believes that demand in energy will drop by 7% by 2050 because some countries are making a effort, although Canada is not.
The European Union believes that energy demand will drop by 30% to 38% by 2050. Why? It is because some countries are doing their part. Canada is not among them.
France expects its energy demand to drop by 40% by 2050. Why? It is because France is a G7 country that is making an effort. Here in the House, whenever a Conservative motion is put forward, the substantive problems are forgotten in the rush to score partisan points. I have no interest in going down that road. We deserve better in the House.
When faced with the kinds of things I am saying now, the Conservatives attack Quebec. Just last week, Conservatives posted misleading statements on social media, saying that a metric tonne of carbon is cheaper in Quebec, with our cap-and-trade system, than in the rest of the country. The reason is simple: Our system is based on controlling quantity, and prices fluctuate. A metric tonne is cheaper in Quebec because there is less demand. There is less demand for allowances because we pollute less.
This system was the Western Climate Initiative, which originally included Canadian provinces and U.S. states. Some of them dropped out because they wanted to pay less, because they do not want to transition and because they knew it would cost them even more. Today, they refuse to consider possible solutions. That is what put us in the position we are in today.
Let us get back to the issue of inflation. All of this does not mean that no one is facing higher prices for groceries or fuel. The people I meet on a daily basis are experiencing these difficulties. We must address the weaknesses in our supply chain. It is not because of the Bank of Canada that we are having a hard time getting Japanese cars. There is just one Conservative telling us that. It is not the Bank of Canada's fault that lumber is in short supply. Last time I checked, the governor of the central bank was not out cutting down spruce trees in the Saguenay region. I did not hear anything of the kind.
It is not Canada's fault that we have seen record prices for resources such as wheat, rice or commodities. At the Chicago stock exchange, a few weeks ago, no one cared about Alberta's carbon tax. There is just one Conservative saying that and misleading the public.
Over the long term, global warming will cause even more disruption and instability in the supply chain. There is just one Conservative telling us it is a myth. This week, I heard a Conservative say that the holes in the ozone layer were a myth. They are the only ones who think that way.
When the Bloc Québécois moves motions on the prayer in the House or on the monarchy and the fact that we kneel before entering the House to pray to a foreign sovereign who is up to his ears in monarchy, the Conservatives lecture us about priorities.
I would have liked to see the Conservatives move a motion about our dependence on oil and how we can reduce it in a way that is fair to workers. I would have liked to see them present a targeted plan for low-income individuals or targeted support for our farmers. That is what our farmers are asking for, to deal with the structural weaknesses of our supply chains.
I would have liked to see them present a plan for building social housing for those who need it. Trickle-down economics does not work for housing. We must build housing for people who are living on the streets.
I would have liked to see a motion proposing solutions to address the weak links in the supply chain. Quebec's seaports are telling us they need help.
The next time the Conservatives call our priorities into question, I will tell them to buy a mirror, because they are on sale at Rona.
1730 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:12:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion on the carbon tax, which, according to the Conservatives, is the enemy of humankind.
What is more, we have before us Bill C-234, which will give our farmers some tax relief on farm fuels and the sales tax on propane used for drying grain. We have many farmers in my riding of Mirabel. I would like to know what the government thinks about that. We know that, previously, the government and even the Minister of Agriculture voted against farmers. I am wondering whether they have changed their minds in that regard. This is very important for farmers in Mirabel. They have talked to me about it many times.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 4:41:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne.
I want to begin by stressing the importance of pre-budget consultations and their particular significance this year. We are emerging from two years of a pandemic. It has been extremely difficult. Our businesses, taxpayers, workers and families have been through trying times, something quite out of the ordinary. Given those circumstances, it is more important than ever to consult our constituents, our organizations, the business community, so that we are drawing ideas from the grassroots level.
I am an optimist, and I cannot wait to see the budget this Thursday. However, we are already starting to get the feeling today that things are not going well and that there is a chance we will be disappointed. Let us start with health.
We know that the pandemic was very hard on the health sector. There has been a lot of focus on COVID-19 patients, COVID-19-related deaths, and long-haulers. We are there for them. It is still very hard for many people, but we cannot forget the triaging, the surgeries that had to be delayed and the families who have had to go through extremely difficult times.
We have seen this in other countries. Switzerland comes to mind, for example. Certain other countries have more resilient health care systems. They were more resilient because they have been reformed. They have been reformed because funding was available and more hospital beds were available. This enabled them to do better in the pandemic and to reduce the economic costs associated with all the lockdown measures. What we need now in order to deal with future crises, to clear the backlog of surgeries, to clear all the backlogs, are health transfers with no strings attached, transfers that cover 35% of system costs. Indeed, our health care systems need to be reformed.
The Quebec health minister has already presented a major reform plan, but it needs to be funded. As we know, the money is here in Ottawa. We had a long list of health care stakeholders in Quebec today. Everyone was there, including general practitioners, specialists, unions. These people are calling for health transfers with no strings attached in order to ensure predictable funding so that we can plan reforms. These are the people who work on the ground, in hospitals. These are the people who take care of others.
I imagine that the budget is pretty much ready to go, that copies are being printed and bound in pretty plastic covers. When we asked the Minister of Health the question, he said that, yes, the government would be giving small amounts. I am sure the member for Winnipeg North will talk about that later. The government is handing out money, but these are ad hoc microtransfers, bits of money here and there. Then the Minister of Health expects us to thank him for that. In the meantime, he is refusing to meet with people in Quebec who take care of the sick day after day.
This is one of our demands, something we need to support the budget. We are proud of that because it is what Quebeckers and others want. The federal government is the one with the money and it has to recommit. We are also asking for the Canada social transfer to be brought back to its 1993‑94 levels.
The Conservatives are on their soapbox again. Last time it was about their love for Paul Martin. Today it is Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien and John Manley. They like all the Liberals who made cuts. As I have said before, starting in 1995, they merged the health and social transfers and then made repeated cuts to them. We are still not back to the same level of funding as we had before.
The Canada social transfer is used for post‑secondary education, social assistance, early childhood education, and educational services. It is astounding to hear the Liberals brag about interfering in provincial jurisdictions when it comes to child care when, for years, they have not made up for any lost ground with the Canada social transfer. That should be done. It is necessary. The provincial governments are the ones providing the services. When the federal government tries, it rarely goes well. We are seeing that right now with Citizenship and Immigration.
I attended and participated in the budget consultations at the Standing Committee on Finance. Before the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals was even consummated, people were already asking questions. The recommendations were presented, and we told them that they fell under provincial jurisdiction. However, they do not understand what these jurisdictions are.
Last week, the member for Fredericton told me that she understands why the Bloc wants the government to stay out of provincial jurisdictions but that mental health is such an important issue that the government should intervene.
I have no doubt that they are sincere, but sincerity and incompetence do not get us anywhere. What matters is money, and it needs to be given to those on the ground.
Let us talk about the cost of living. As an economist, I know that the supply chain and the issues we have had are partly to blame for the inflationary pressures we are experiencing. The Conservatives are living in their own little world, where the Earth is flat and there is nothing outside our borders.
I know that all these supply problems are a big source of the inflationary pressure, but there is another factor at play. Inflation has been at 2%, or between 1% and 3%, for decades, so families, businesses, governments and anyone who needs to procure goods have planned their finances around a predictable inflation rate of 2%. Everyone was taken by surprise.
The most vulnerable members of society are among those who were taken by surprise. Some families are struggling to make ends meet. They are being told that this is temporary, that it will not last long. They are being told that they only have to go hungry for two years, then inflation will go back to 2%.
The Bloc Québécois believes that these people need to be supported. This must be done through an increase in the GST credit when inflation is above 3%. Indeed, there is a monetary policy commitment that inflation would not exceed 3%. The frequency of cheques could also be increased. It is important to help these people, because they are struggling financially right now.
Let us talk green finance. We want to see that in the budget. During question period today, the environment minister once again boasted about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. To hear him tell it, one would think the Liberals had been in power for six months, but they have been in power since 2015.
The subsidies are still there, and the government is still dumping taxpayer dollars into fossil fuels. That kind of short-term thinking is what gets the world in trouble. That kind of short-term thinking means that, when gas is $2 a litre, we will be even more dependent on it. That is what we need to work on.
Our financial institutions must disclose climate risk. That is under federal jurisdiction, but the one time they do have jurisdiction over something, they do not use it.
We also need to change the the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's mandate. It is clear from what the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is doing and from all the financial innovations at Desjardins that people want green investments. We have to put money toward the transition.
The CPP Investment Board has come up with its own strategy. It wants to invest in carbon capture. Carbon capture does not exist, though. It is a last-ditch strategy that may one day enable us to knock out the last few units, the last few metric tonnes of emissions, but they are up to their eyeballs in oil.
Let us talk about access to water. Are the Liberals proud of their legacy? The Chrétien government promised our first nations access to drinking water, Paul Martin made a commitment to that effect, and the current government keeps talking about it, but it has not happened yet, even though drinking water is essential.
I will talk about farming because it is very important to my riding, Mirabel. Earlier during question period, the Minister of Agriculture told us that our farmers know how much they will be getting in compensation. Their market was stolen from them with CUSMA, but they will not be getting their money until next year. I feel like going up to every government MP and telling them that their salary is x amount, but I will not pay it until next year, so good luck with the mortgage.
Those payments need to be moved up. Farmers are important. They are the ones who feed us. Farmers, especially those who are supply managed, are having a very tough time right now because of input costs.
I will close by saying that expectations are high and I am very worried about the signs I am seeing.
1556 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
