Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to rise after the member for Foothills. I hope I will be forgiven if my remarks are not quite as lively as his. I am nevertheless pleased to take part in this debate because Quebec is a nation recognized internationally for its abundant natural resources. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, for example, we are known for our water. Thanks to our eskers, we are home to one of the largest sources of pure water anywhere. It is no coincidence that our water has even won international awards. Our predominantly boreal forests form part of one of the largest forest ecosystems on the planet. They sustain our communities. They capture and store immense quantities of carbon. Beneath our feet lie gold and copper, which have made our region renowned for mining. That said, there is one resource that receives far less attention. It is a resource we do not see because we walk on it every day. I am speaking, of course, about soil. We have plenty of it in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We are also home to the Institut de recherche en agriculture et en agroalimentaire, or IRAA, at the Université du Québec en Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, known as UQAT. We even have a leading expert on our soils: Vincent Poirier, director of UQAT, whom I would like to acknowledge today. During his recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Mr. Poirier pointed out just how detrimental the cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s research centres and experimental farms would be, because it is impossible to conduct research without being in the field. He had this to say: Soil can’t be moved. It’s unthinkable to do that. It’s also impossible to move climate conditions. We can try our very best, but there’s so much complexity involved in the natural environment that I would say it’s unrealistic to think that we can recreate everything under controlled conditions. That is the backdrop against which this bill is being introduced. This bill calls on the government to develop a national strategy to protect, conserve and enhance the health of agricultural soil. Maintaining research funding would have been a good start. We also need to put the bill into context. Right now, we are also dealing with the Alto high-speed rail project, which is going to absolutely destroy some of the best farmland in Quebec and Ontario. No one in the Liberal Party or on either the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities or the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food wants to address the actual consequences of this project, and yet, the Senate is telling us in this bill that we need to protect farmland. Does anyone understand where the Liberals are headed now? I am forgetting an important point. This bill is yet another federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Once again, the federal government is trying to dictate what the provinces should do, especially since the bill speaks of “consulting” the provinces when, in reality, their consent should be required. Without consent, the answer is no. I think that should be obvious. What is more, Quebec is already taking action and has already made progress in protecting its farmland. It already has a plan for sustainable agriculture that was tabled by the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, and I would like to congratulate its new minister on his appointment. The Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities and the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec are also important pillars of soil protection and the preservation of Quebec’s agricultural lands. Together, they form the backbone of a comprehensive framework developed and tailored to Quebec’s realities. Incidentally, Alto should also be required to comply with that Quebec legislative framework. I would very much like my Liberal colleagues to confirm that the Alto project will be subject to an assessment of its impact on Quebec’s agricultural land and that it will obtain authorization from the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec. In the interest of getting this right, it seems to me that this project cannot simply sidestep the most basic laws. I imagine Bill C‑39 probably already includes provisions that would allow it to do just that. I will not apologize for that aside. My point, once again, is that Quebec has already taken action. Why, then, does Canada need to adopt this policy? Is it because some provinces are reluctant to act? If certain provinces wish to sacrifice their agricultural land, that is their choice. It is not up to Ottawa to tell them what to do. Another thing that astonishes me is that, on the very day this bill was introduced, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced that he would be working with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada to develop a national soil strategy. What is even more astonishing, however, is the composition of that organization’s board of directors: Not a single Quebecker sits on it. I will say it again: There are no members from Quebec. In other words, the strategy is being developed by an organization that has no roots in Quebec. They are unfamiliar with Quebec’s reality, so how can the minister delegate the development of a strategy that he considers important for Canada to a group that does not, in fact, represent the whole of Canada? This is the most basic of principles. What also shocks me is that two of the seats are held by people who serve on the boards of Fertilizer Canada and CropLife Canada, two organizations that advocate for the use of pesticides and chemical inputs. That amounts to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Pesticides and chemical inputs have a harmful impact on the quality of our soil. Everyone knows that. This shows that, with Bills C-30 and C-31, the government has sided with the pesticide and chemical input companies, as well as giving them a seat at the table. However, it has failed to ensure Quebec is represented. Instead of investing in and continuing research at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s research centres and experimental farms to discover new plant varieties and new, more regenerative practices, the government is placing even more importance on the chemical inputs and pesticides industry. That said, when we talk about market diversification, the European Union’s presence in Canada over the coming days is a reminder that Europe should be one of the markets we are targeting. However, our pesticide policies are causing Europe to close its doors to many of our agricultural products, precisely because of the use of these pesticides. In short, this soil strategy and this bill are first and foremost about forcing Canadian provinces to protect their farmland. However, Quebec is already at the forefront in this respect. A few examples of what Quebec is doing include tools like Info-Sols, which provides an overview of Quebec’s soils; OGeMOS, a simulation tool for soil management; and Terranimo, a web-based application to assess the risks to agricultural soils. That is not even mentioning the fertilization reference documents and the various pesticide regulations that Quebec has developed. Today, we are witnessing another attempt by the government to interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. If Ottawa truly wanted to protect farmland, it would start by asking its members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to study the Alto project immediately, to better understand its impact on farmland. If we truly want to recognize farmland as a strategic national asset, that begins with a government that refuses to sacrifice its best land in Quebec and Ontario essentially to save an hour of travel time. In closing, I would like to accept the olive branch extended to me by my colleague from Guelph during questions and comments and simply say this: If she thinks what I am saying is untrue because our interpretations differ, yet she wants the support of the Bloc Québécois, she should try to convince us rather than accuse us of saying falsehoods.
