44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and the bill he is sponsoring in the House. I think it is necessary to enshrine the importance of food in legislation.
I would like to hear his thoughts. We are passing good legislation that outlines great principles, but what does my colleague make of the fact that our agricultural community is currently sounding the alarm?
Last week, the UPA released another statement in which it mentioned that nearly one in 10 farms are considering ceasing operations over the coming year if there is no liquidity support to help farmers deal with the rising interest rates.
How does my colleague interpret the government's inaction? Does he, like me, think that these people deserve, at least, to have a positive response?
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is clearly in favour of establishing a food day. It was a pleasure to address this in committee, and it passed within minutes. It is not controversial.
The bill states that “Canada’s national sovereignty is dependent on the safety and security of our food supply”, that it “contributes to our nation’s social, environmental and economic well-being”, that it is important to support local farmers and that local foods need to be celebrated. All that is wonderful.
Unfortunately, I will be a bit of a killjoy this morning, because it is just lip service. Yes, we will vote in favour of the bill because it is important to establish this day. I think that we will be able to use it as a springboard for future initiatives; however, in reality, our agricultural industry is currently suffering. In response to the significant inflationary pressure, the Union des producteurs in Quebec and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture sent out messages and letters and expressly asked for meetings. Their requests were very, very reasonable and based on facts and data. They even made pre-budget requests, because they know how things work. They know when they need to do this.
There was very little in the budget; next to nothing, in fact. There was some clarification about Bill C-208 on farm succession after more than a year of waiting and more than a year of frozen transactions, especially in Quebec. That takes time. That was positive, but as for the rest, all we got were vague figures and the continuation of existing programs that barely work or are not working at all. I will provide some statistics. The people at UPA explained it for us.
The cost of inputs has risen by 43.3% overall, but in agriculture, it is up 69%. Inflation has risen by 55.4% on average, but in agriculture, it is up 64%. That refers to the cost of everything required to produce food. The increase in interest rates and the cost of debt servicing comes to 36.9% overall, but 58.5% in agriculture, because farms have a high debt load. As the previous speaker mentioned, gone are the days of pitchforks; Technologies have evolved and farmers now need tractors, which are expensive. We see farmers working in their fields and we think they are doing fine, but they still have not paid off their equipment. These producers are going into debt to feed us. I really want people to start understanding that, believing it and taking appropriate action.
The costs do not stop there. Transportation costs have risen by 33% in other sectors, but 49.9% in agriculture. Insurance costs have increased by 31.7% overall, but 49.6 % in agriculture. The list goes on. Things have reached a point where two out of 10 farm businesses are now in poor or very poor financial shape. We are talking about 20% of farms. Five out of 10 farm businesses expect their financial situation to deteriorate in the next twelve months. Three out of 10 businesses have a negative residual balance. Things are not going well. Four out of 10 farm businesses report that rising interest rates could prevent them from meeting their financial obligations. For some, this will mean shutting down. More than six out of 10 businesses plan to reduce or delay investments because they are straining just to keep up with their payments. In this kind of situation, investing is out of the question. The government wants these businesses to invest money and says it will help them, but they are tapped out. To grasp the reality of this situation, we have to see what is happening on the ground.
A total of 18% of businesses are considering asking their financial institution for a capital holiday. Do members understand what it means to request a capital holiday from a financial institution? It means that things are going so badly for the business that it will only pay the interest on its loans. What a great future for agricultural production. I think that, as a federal government, we have a role to play in that. I think that we could meet the needs and boost cash flow. What is more, 14% of farms plan to reduce the size of their business because they cannot deliver. Here is the most troubling statistic: 11% of farms plan to cease operations or close their doors. That is more than one in 10 farms.
We are mainly talking here about young farmers, the ones we talk about with a tear in our eye, while saying they are so great and wonderful. Perhaps it is time for us to show them how great and wonderful they really are by helping them. Farming is an ongoing, daily struggle, and we, as elected officials, need to have the utmost respect for these people who work seven days a week.
Given the current shortage of workers in almost every sector, let us survey agricultural businesses to find out who is interested in taking over the farm, in working seven days a week, 12 months a year. Let us find out who is interested in living in uncertainty with little support from governments and in being forced to compete with foreign products that do not meet the same standards.
I do not know how many times we have talked about reciprocity of standards. I want to give a shout-out to my colleague from Beauce, who is leading this fight with me at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He often raises this issue. Something needs to be done. We cannot ask our farmers to meet very strict standards yet also let in junk. When they talk about increasing the level of glyphosate in food—like they did last year—when none of our local farmers asked for it, they are sending a very clear message, namely that we will adapt to international standards. That way, people can bring in stock subject to more standards than our farmers' products. Can we be serious for 30 seconds, impose the same requirements and support our people?
Chicken farmers have created a DNA test. It has been around for years, it works and it is ready to go. Why is it not in place yet? The DNA test determines whether the poultry coming in is spent fowl or fresh chicken. There is cheating in international trade. Trade is wonderful; we all need to trade, but that has to be a rigorous process.
We must not forget the most important part. There have been plenty of positive speeches and gestures here in the House of Commons, including overwhelming support from 293 members who voted in favour of the bill to protect supply management in future trade agreements. That is significant. All political parties and the vast majority of MPs supported it. Only 23 people opposed it. However, now the bill is stuck in committee. There is an obvious intent to hijack the bill, and some members are filibustering. They keep talking to kill time. Everyone's time is being wasted.
I would also point out that this is coming from a political party that is always talking about government spending. They have good reason to talk about government spending, but it is important to stop and think for a second about what it costs to have a committee meeting where the same person talks for two hours, delaying a crucial bill that we passed in 2021 but had to start over again because an election was called. Although some progress has been made and we are at roughly the same stage, the bill is currently stuck.
I do not really want to hear anyone say that the bill is going to pass anyway. Are we serious about supporting our producers? Our producers are watching us and watching the public committee meetings. They are not happy. They want transparency and honesty when it comes to support, and they want concrete action. My colleagues know that it is important to be self-sufficient in terms of food security. I talk a lot about food resilience, food sovereignty. It really is important.
In closing, I would like to remind all my colleagues how much this reality hit home during the pandemic. This is a very serious issue. It is not just unpleasant for key sectors to be reliant on outside sources, it is actually very bad. I am talking about medical equipment, masks, ventilators. I am talking about food. That is basic. When we talk about key sectors, feeding the public is the foundation of everything. I am very pleased to support this bill. A food day will be wonderful. It needs to be used as a launch pad for what comes next. Let us do something meaningful and put our words into action.
1498 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 1:58:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has a keen interest in agricultural issues. I have a technical question for her.
We are currently working on Bill C-282 in committee. This is a bill that was overwhelmingly supported by the Conservatives. Now we are witnessing a filibuster. I would like her opinion on that.
Does she think it is okay to filibuster? If the Conservatives are now against the bill, should they not just vote against it and own that position rather than blocking House proceedings?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 2:39:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I saw the results of the poll and the various studies.
It is very concerning to see that we might lose so many of our agricultural producers. That is why we are working in collaboration with the Government of Quebec on various options.
We have just signed the $3.5‑billion sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership. That is an increase of $500 million. We are also looking at emergency programs. In fact, when the Prime Minister met with the UPA, he said that we would work together on bringing in a targeted measure to help those who may be having a tough time getting through the year.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 2:40:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we must act quickly. What good is it to give speeches about the importance of local food resiliency if we let our local farms disappear?
We talk about inflation and interest rates every day, but we never talk about the farmers who are affected by this issue. According to UPA data, 50% of agricultural businesses expect their financial situation to further deteriorate this year.
Does the federal government think it is okay for our farmers to go into debt to feed us? Is that going to convince young people to take over our farms?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
