44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 19, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, the bill before us would amend two federal laws, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that the perishable fruits and vegetables sold by a supplier to a purchaser, as well as the proceeds of sale of those fruits and vegetables, are to be held in trust by the purchaser for the supplier.
What this bill would actually do is provide special protection to suppliers of fruits and vegetables if a client were to go bankrupt. At present, the regime that applies in the event of a buyer bankruptcy allows a supplier to take back the goods sold to the buyer. In the case of fruits and vegetables, the problem is very simple. In the time it takes for the administrative measures to be completed, there is a high risk that the fruits and vegetables will no longer be fresh and their value reduced to zero. Suppliers would see the goods they worked so hard to produce be thrown away without having any recourse.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
We can all agree that the provisions in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are poorly adapted to the reality of our agricultural producers and to the structure of agri-food supply chains.
Bill C‑280, which is co-sponsored by my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, seeks to establish a trust mechanism in the event that a purchaser becomes bankrupt. The trust mechanism ensures that the purchaser is the guarantor of the value of the shipment, without owning it, in the event of a default due to the application of one of the two acts. This bill will be extremely helpful to our producers and agri-food suppliers who do business with our neighbours to the south.
Prior to 2014, Canadian fruit and vegetable suppliers were protected by a U.S. law when doing business in the United States. When an American company defaulted or went bankrupt, our companies were protected by the U.S. regime. That is no longer the case, and the alternative process developed between the two countries is cumbersome, especially for our smaller businesses.
As of 2014, the United States decided to withdraw protections for Quebec and Canadian suppliers in the event that their American buyers become insolvent or file for bankruptcy. The American government made that decision, which penalizes and undermines our Canadian farmers, business owners and suppliers, because of the lack of an equivalent mechanism in the Canadian regulatory framework.
Right now, without that protection, Quebec and Canadian produce suppliers must go through a special process to take legal action under that law in the United States. According to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, suppliers are required to post a bond worth double the value of the shipment to initiate a claim. Most suppliers do not have that kind of cash flow and big buyers are well aware of that. Our suppliers are therefore forced to negotiate the buyer down to try to get a minimum amount of compensation rather than lose everything.
According to the testimony heard by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when examining this issue, the United States and the United States Department of Agriculture have been very clear. They will be looking for a deemed trust before they agree to have a conversation on whether they will give us back the treatment we had previously. A public servant also confirmed that “the trade of fresh produce between Canada and the U.S. has continued to rise over the last four years, by 55% for fresh fruits and 26% for fresh vegetables, showing that the U.S. remains an important market for [Quebec and] Canadian fresh produce.”
Clearly, reinstating protection for our farmers who do business in the United States is not all that far-fetched. In fact, I would argue that it is necessary and urgent. I also want to remind the Prime Minister that he committed to fixing this problem not two weeks, two months or even two years ago. In 2014, when he had only just been elected to lead his party, he committed to fixing this problem if he took office, as he did in the 2015 federal election.
Spoiler alert: His party has been running the federal government for almost 10 years. Why has it taken this long to get something done in support of our agricultural sector? This bill has the support of every party in the House. What is more, the bill is an environmental and social measure.
I do not know why it has taken so long. That said, when it comes to Liberal standards, we have seen worse than taking 10 years to deliver on a promise.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that I have the honour and privilege of representing the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, a rural and proudly agricultural region.
In my region, we have 2,000 farms that produce annual revenues of more than $600 million, a major contribution to the gross domestic product of the region, Quebec and Canada. Dairy farming alone represents nearly half of all agri-food operations in the Lower St. Lawrence region, but our passionate farmers work in countless other sectors, such as maple syrup production in Témiscouata, hog farming, cattle farming, and grain and potato farming. There are also produce growers who grow fruits and vegetables on our fertile land.
During my many visits and meetings with produce growers, I noticed that the representatives from the farming industry firmly and unanimously support this bill. That is why my esteemed colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will support our colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, the agriculture, agri‑food and supply management critic, so that Bill C‑280, the bill he co-sponsored, may come into force as soon as possible. I invite all my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same.
For the sake of regions such as the Lower St. Lawrence, where farming has been an integral part of our daily lives for centuries, and for the sake of helping the farmers who put food on our tables remain competitive and financially healthy, we must move forward with Bill C‑280.
886 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to express my solidarity with the striking members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, who have been working without a contract for two years. New Democrats have always championed the rights of workers, and it is our moral duty to support the hard-working public servants who tirelessly serve our communities and our country.
PSAC, which represents over 155,000 striking members, is engaged in a critical struggle against an unfair federal government. This is the largest strike against a single employer in Canada's history. The Liberals, and the Conservatives before them, have utterly failed to address the concerns of workers in the public sector. Under the Liberals, we have witnessed a sustained assault on workers' rights by way of back-to-work legislation, as well as a disregard for the welfare of workers in the public service.
In solidarity with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we demand that the Prime Minister and the federal government address the key issues raised by PSAC members, which include decent wages that prevent workers from falling further behind; a more inclusive federal public service; remote work enshrined in collective agreements; a right to disconnect after hours; an increase in indigenous language benefits; and good, secure jobs. The government needs to recognize the steeply rising cost of living and the impact of inflation on families. It should then call for a fair pay raise to reflect these realities.
We, therefore, call upon the Liberals to work to ensure that the federal government engages in good-faith negotiations with members of PSAC. We must seize this opportunity to create lasting change for our public sector workers and for all Canadians who believe in fairness, justice and the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Our message to the Prime Minister and the government is clear: It is time to come to the bargaining table with a genuine commitment to fairness and justice for workers in the public sector.
I rise today to discuss and debate Bill C-280, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. We in the NDP are proud to support this bill as it would give protections to long-struggling farmers whose crops we depend on. The NDP has a long record of advocating for farmers. In fact, it was small farmers in the Prairies, alongside union members, who moved to fight to protect people from the excesses of the market. They stood with Canadians feeling the brunt of the Great Depression and founded the CCF, which was the precursor to the NDP. That commitment to standing with rural and northern Canadians continues to this day.
People in my part of the country know those who are and are not our friends. We remember what happened when the Conservatives were in power and what was done to communities like the ones I represent. They sold off the Canadian Wheat Board. I raise this today because we are talking about the need for collective solutions to support farmers, farm families and farm communities. That is exactly what the Canadian Wheat Board was all about.
The single desk allowed for Canadian grain farmers to have security when it came to predicting their crops, marketing their crops and trading some of the best grain in the world. It ensured that the hard work of farmers was being recognized and valued through our trade relationships. Unfortunately, a number of years ago, Stephen Harper and his Conservative government went against the wishes of so many farmers in western Canada and dismantled the Wheat Board.
Since that time, we have seen big corporations in agribusiness, big grain corporations, make significant profits. Farmers continued to work hard. Some were not able to withstand the loss of the Wheat Board. Many farmers I speak to have regained some ground, but many speak very clearly about how losing the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board was a major loss.
In fact, the loss has reverberated in communities across my region. I have the honour of representing Churchill, and we know that the Port of Churchill was one of the most regularly used ports to export grains to certain parts of the world. It was and is obviously used seasonally, but it has not recovered since the loss of the Wheat Board. The rail line leading to the port has also lost a lot of ground since we lost the Wheat Board. This bill today recognizes that there need to be collective solutions to support farmers and farm families.
I also want to recognize the impacts of climate change on farming. We know that freak climate events are wreaking havoc across our country, and increasingly around the world. While many who are not involved in farming also face various challenges, we know that, for farmers, these kinds of weather events mean the loss of their livelihood and security, and they have already had devastating impacts on entire agricultural regions in our country.
As the economic situation of many Canadians becomes more and more difficult, unfortunately the government's actions are only compounding the situation. If we go to any rural or northern community in our region and elsewhere, we will hear the same thing: The growing season is shorter and weather is more unpredictable. Yet, following a long tradition of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, the current government sits idly by destroying our planet one oil subsidy at a time. It lacks the courage even to use the term “just transition”, much less to put into practice the need to remake our economy into one where everyone thrives. Instead, it is farmers, northerners and indigenous communities who are the first to pay the price for government inaction. This needs to change.
We have seen the breakdown of supply chains across the globe, and farmers are paying the price. COVID-19, the war in Ukraine, climate change and other factors have exposed the weaknesses in our supply chains. It is more difficult than it has ever been to transport food, especially fresh fruit and vegetables, from farm to store to table. At the same time, farmers' debts are growing. Furthermore, farmers do not currently have the right to regain products claimed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act if they have not been resold or are no longer identifiable in the same state. Food that is spoiled, for example, is not considered to be in the same state, and farmers just lose the product. This is kicking someone when they are down, and it is unacceptable.
Farmers have been clear. They expect the types of changes needed to put them on a level playing field with our closest trading partner, the Americans. They expect a statutory deemed trust for payment protection from losses due to buyers defaulting on payment obligations, and so do we. That is why these sorts of calls have been part of our last three NDP federal platforms in 2015, 2019 and 2021. We have been very clear. We have called for a payment protection plan for produce growers. We have called to restore protection for growers selling to American consumers. The reality is that Liberals need to stop dragging their feet on this. Meetings will not cut it. Farmers have been waiting during seven years of Liberal inaction, and this needs to end. Farmers saw with horror how the Conservatives let a raft of honest farmers lose their financial protection, and the Liberals have sat back and refused to restore it.
These types of common-sense policies will reduce the number of farm bankruptcies, encourage timely transport of produce from farmland to fridge and provide a measure of stability in an already volatile food price inflation market. We thank the member for bringing forward the bill and encourage all members of the House to support it.
1318 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on this bill, which was brought forward by my colleague from York—Simcoe, I want to say that I appreciate having the support of all the opposition parties on this very important private member's bill. However, in response to my NDP colleague, I am also extremely proud to have been part of a government that eliminated the Wheat Board and gave Canadian farmers marketing freedom and never-before-seen success. That is something farmers are extremely proud of.
Again, I want to thank my colleague from York—Simcoe. Certainly, I think all of us in the House appreciate his passion for his riding, or what he would call the “soup and salad bowl” of the country.
I had the opportunity to tour the Holland Marsh with my colleague last fall, and I had the chance to get down, get my hands dirty and harvest celery and carrots. This is something that does not really happen very often in southern Alberta in the foothills. That was an opportunity to see first-hand the dedication and commitment of those farm families to grow and produce the finest-quality fresh fruit and produce anywhere in the world. It just shows why this legislation, this private member's bill, is so important. It aims to create a limited statutory deemed trust to provide critical financial protection and assurance to our producers of these perishable fruits and vegetables in the event that a purchaser becomes bankrupt or goes into receivership.
I want to mention that the Liberals could bring forward this legislation any time. Interestingly, their 2015 election platform committed to follow through on exactly what my colleague has brought forward today. It is another promise made and another promise broken; it has been almost nine years, and they have yet to follow through on that election commitment.
Again it falls upon the Conservatives to do what the Liberals have failed to do and stand up for Canadian farmers. This legislation would ensure that produce sellers have priority access to an insolvent buyer's cash, inventory and accounts related to the sale of fresh produce.
The current rules severely limit the ability for produce growers and sellers to collect payment when their buyers declare bankruptcy. This is unique, as my colleague from York—Simcoe said, because if a distributor or a vendor went bankrupt, many times those products could be returned to the producer. Electronics, a bicycle or whatever the commodity or product was, it could be returned.
Obviously, with fresh fruit and vegetables, it is a very different situation. Either the product is consumed, or it rots in the warehouse, leaving the producer nothing. They cannot resell it because it has expired and rotted. They cannot collect the product back from the bankrupt retailer.
First, I want to give a bit of background on where we stand. The United States Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act, which many of us have heard referred to as PACA, provides protection to producers of perishable products in the case of a buyer's bankruptcy or insolvency. More specifically, it protects fresh fruit and vegetable growers.
The PACA provisions require buyers to maintain a statutory trust on fruit and vegetables received and not yet paid for. The reason for this is as follows: In the case of a business failure or bankruptcy, the debtor's true assets are not available for general distribution to other creditors until valid claims of trust from producers have been satisfied. This is to protect those fresh fruit and vegetable growers. PACA provided Canadian producers with the same rights as their American suppliers.
While Canadian firms had been the only non-U.S. entities benefiting from these same protections when operating in the United States, the lack of a comparable system here in Canada was a trade irritant to the United States. Not surprisingly, in late 2014, the United States revoked Canada's preferential access to PACA's payment dispute resolution mechanism. This was due to Canada's lack of a similar protection here in Canada, and it was stated that the preferential access would not be reinstated until a similar piece of legislation was passed in Parliament.
Again, it brings us back to the Liberal Party's 2015 election promise to do such a thing, which it has not done. As a result of that, fruit and vegetable growers here in Canada have been waiting more than eight years for the Liberals to act on the campaign promise. However, once again, the Liberals have not followed through on that commitment. With their track record when it comes to Canadian agriculture, this is not surprising.
From what we have heard here tonight, certainly this legislation is long overdue, but it seems that when those things come up the Liberals go out of their way to create trade irritants with the United States rather than solving these issues. We have certainly heard that with PACA tonight, front-of-package labelling, animal vaccines and removing critical pest management products from Canadian farmers that are impacting our American colleagues.
We also heard, just in committee today, from the Food Processors of Canada, that higher interest rates, higher input costs and the carbon tax are putting our producers and our processors in a very precarious financial position, putting even more urgency on this type of legislation, which would provide protection and cost certainty for our processors.
Throughout the years, as a long-term sitting member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I know that this type of legislation has been supported unanimously by all the members of the committee. It has been a recommendation in numerous studies that we have done at the agriculture and agri-food committee, and yet the government has yet to act on that. Clearly, this is not a priority for the Minister of Agriculture, for the Minister of Innovation, for the Minister of International Trade or certainly for the Prime Minister. Time and again, the Liberals have targeted farmers with higher carbon taxes, burdensome red tape, removal of valuable pest management tools, and fertilizer tariffs. Liberal mismanagement on important trade files has put these critical international markets at risk.
We also heard from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada that 44% of fresh fruit and vegetable producers are selling their products at a loss, so there is no question that these bankruptcies and insolvencies can and will happen. In fact, we know they have already happened. Therefore, it is no surprise, when a survey goes out to Canadian farmers asking them if they feel that the current Liberal government is doing a good job supporting agriculture, that only 2% of the farmers surveyed say that they think the Liberals are doing a good job. It is from decisions or inaction on these types of critical pieces of legislation that this frustration and anxiety arise.
When we talk about why this legislation is needed, it only takes one bankruptcy to have a devastating impact throughout the industry, and certainly a ripple effect throughout all of our small rural communities that rely on these family farms. Certainly if we talk to my colleague from York—Simcoe and many of the members of Parliament around his riding, we will hear that the economics of the small communities in those rural areas rely on these industries.
I am sure the government will try to argue that there has been no demonstrated reason why this legislation is needed, but that is simply not true. We already had the Lakeside Produce company in Leamington, Ontario, file for bankruptcy earlier this year. There were 17 Canadian produce companies listed among Lakeside's creditors, totalling more than $1.6 million in unsecured claims. We can imagine the impact that has on the small family farms that are out those dollars and those products. Another 45 produce companies outside Canada, mainly in Mexico and the United States, are owed another $4.85 million. Not only could Canadian companies be in these circumstances, but this is a highly integrated industry and the ripple effects are significant. In addition to Lakeside Produce, in October 2021 a New Brunswick produce retailer declared bankruptcy, with more than $3 million owing to its creditors, including farmers and wholesale produce retailers.
It is absolutely critical that we give our fresh fruit and produce farm families this assurance, this economic safety net and certainly this protection so they can go about their business knowing that a bankruptcy will not put their own farm at risk. Also, as Canadians, we need this protection to ensure that our food security is protected.
I would encourage all members of this House to support this private member's bill and support Canadian farmers.
1467 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, in Nova Scotia. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-280 with my esteemed colleagues here in the House today.
We will undoubtedly hear more about the merits of this bill from our colleagues. For my part, I will focus on offering an overview on the changes it would bring to our insolvency regime, in particular where it would place fresh produce sellers in relation to other creditors, including farmers of other types of perishable products, employees, pensioners and potentially smaller and more local suppliers.
To fully grasp Bill C-280, we must start by considering how our insolvency laws currently work. There are two main insolvency laws in Canada: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA. These laws address both business and personal insolvencies.
Business insolvency solutions include both restructuring and liquidation options to distressed businesses to mitigate impacts and make the best of a bad situation. If restructuring is not feasible and a liquidation is required, the BIA ensures the orderly liquidation of assets and distribution of proceeds to creditors. At the top of the list are deemed trusts and superpriority creditors, which currently include limited amounts for farmers, fishers and unpaid suppliers, including the fresh produce suppliers that are meant to benefit from this bill. It also includes amounts owed to employees for unpaid wages. Next are secured creditors, followed by preferred creditors and unsecured creditors, which would include most unpaid suppliers, such as landlords and construction and repair businesses.
First, as I briefly mentioned, there is already a limited superpriority for Canadian farmers, fishers and aquaculturists, which entitles them to payment ahead of other creditors for amounts owing on products delivered within 15 days of bankruptcy. The superpriority available to farmers under this provision applies to the bankrupt buyer's inventory or the proceeds of the sale of the inventory. Unlike Bill C-280, the existing superpriority applies to all Canadian farmers, including producers of other perishable agricultural commodities such as milk and eggs.
Second, any unpaid suppliers of goods, including fresh produce sellers, can seek to recover unsold, identifiable goods from a bankrupt purchaser within 30 days of delivery. Canada's insolvency laws balance debtors' and creditors' interests, enabling businesses, including those in agriculture and agri-food, to access credit, invest, create jobs and treat creditors equitably.
Typically, changes to priority payments in insolvency are only made in exceptional circumstances. My colleagues may, for example, remember Bill C-228, which elevated the claims in insolvency for amounts owing to pensioners, who in some unfortunate cases have seen reductions in their pensions and retirement benefits due to the insolvency of their employers.
Bill C-280 creates a deemed trust for the claims of fresh produce sellers. A deemed trust is an extraordinary legal tool that, when used, makes the proceeds of a sale the property of the seller and not the buyer. Even if the seller is not yet paid, in an insolvency the deemed trust would let sellers recover amounts ahead of all creditors and outside of the insolvency process. This is a much stronger legal tool than is currently enjoyed by any other private commercial creditor group in insolvency.
First, the deemed trust would apply to the entire fresh produce supply chain. This means marketers, intermediaries and wholesalers of fresh produce who are engaging in everyday business transactions, just like every other supplier or wholesaler of other goods to the bankrupt purchaser. I note that this could also include multinational grocery corporations that wholesale fresh produce to their affiliates and large American sellers selling into Canada.
Second, it would apply to all the assets of the company, not just the inventory.
Third, whereas the existing protections for farmers apply only to produce from Canadian farms, American and other international fresh produce farmers and suppliers participating in a Canadian insolvency would benefit under Bill C-280.
669 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:26:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last Saturday night, I was with over 800 people at the Working Centre's annual mayors' dinner. It is an incredible organization in my community that has been on the front lines of responding to poverty, unemployment, the housing crisis and more.
It was at that event that we got to hear of the lived experiences of people living unsheltered. One estimate that we now have is that about double the number of people in the room that night are living unsheltered across Waterloo region.
This is a crisis that we are in the midst of. In Waterloo region, we have plenty of people with great ideas and passion. People are, for example, coming together to buy properties to keep them permanently affordable, such as Union Co-operative is doing. Organizations such as the Working Centre, the House of Friendship, Beyond Housing and so many more are pouring their hearts and lives into building the affordable housing that we need.
In light of this, I need the parliamentary secretary to know that the federal government cannot take a year off when it comes to addressing the housing crisis. Communities like mine, while full of people who are ready to step up, cannot be expected to do it on their own. We need all three levels of government acting like this is the crisis that it is.
Months ago, Canada's federal housing advocate, a position that was created by the federal government own legislation, was clear. She said that the national housing strategy is failing. After this budget, she said, “The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.”
Why did she say that? It is because on housing, there was nothing in it, outside of a needed investment in indigenous housing, which is unfortunately back-loaded, and the funding does not start for a few years still.
My concern is that the federal government might be out of ideas on housing while we are in the midst of a crisis that needs urgent action. For the rest of my time, I want to offer more of those ideas for the parliamentary secretary to continue to put pressure on the implementation.
First, we need to get more affordable non-market housing built. One simple idea is to make the rapid housing initiative a permanent annual funding envelope for housing providers, in my community and others across the country, to apply for, predictably, to build the housing they are keen to build.
Second, we need to increase investments in co-op housing to get more built, just the way we did back in the eighties at the rate and the pace that we did then. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for an investment in co-op housing from last year and pretend that this is enough.
Third, we need to end the loophole for real estate investment trusts to ensure that they pay their taxes at the same rate as others and direct that funding to build more of the non-market housing that we need. Fourth, we need to follow through on Habitat for Humanity's call to waive GST for all affordable housing built by charities across the country.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is this: Will they push for these kinds of initiatives to address the housing crisis we are in?
577 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:30:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Kitchener Centre for the excellent question on an issue that both of us truly care deeply about.
Just last week, I met with over a dozen stakeholders and community leaders in my community of Windsor—Tecumseh at a round table focused on the issue of affordable housing, and that includes housing for those experiencing homelessness.
Our government has made housing a priority since the very beginning of our mandate. That is why in 2017 we launched the landmark national housing strategy, a first in Canadian history and a return to federal involvement in housing. Prior to this, the federal government had not been seriously involved in housing for decades, and we knew we had much work to catch up on. The range of programs under the strategy addressed the needs of people across the housing spectrum, from building new shelter units to supporting the purchase of a first home to support directly for renters.
The rapid housing initiative is an example of one such program having tremendous success. The initiative helps people most in need, like people who are homeless or at risk of becoming so. This program provides grants to support the rapid creation of permanent affordable housing units. It has continually exceeded its targets, and now, with the third round, we hope to create a total of nearly 15,000 units.
The national housing co-investment fund is another program lifting people out of homelessness. Among its achievements, it has yielded over 3,700 shelter beds, 3,500 supportive housing units and 1,600 transitional housing beds so far. However, I do not want to talk about numbers here. I would rather talk about people.
These are people like Emily from Vancouver, who was homeless and struggled with addictions. She found a home at Union Gospel Mission's Women and Families Centre, and she says the support she received changed her life. The centre was built with funding from the national co-investment fund. There is also Bill, a Canadian Forces veteran in Ottawa who went from being homeless to living in Veterans' House. That project was also financed by the co-investment fund. Projects like these are successful because they acknowledge the complex nature of homelessness and the range of factors that lead to it.
Our government's homelessness strategy, Reaching Home, takes a whole-of-government approach to the issue. We also work closely with partners in other orders of government and elsewhere in the housing sector.
Our government takes a human rights-based approach to housing because we fundamentally believe that access to housing is indeed a human right. This is unlike the Conservative Party, which has no plan for housing, did nothing when it was in government and still will not say whether it believes housing is a human right. This should be something that all parties agree on.
488 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:33:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would agree that there are other parties here that are not doing enough on housing, but that was not the question I asked. I asked how the parliamentary secretary can stand by a budget that does not invest in the housing we need.
He spoke about the rapid housing initiative. That is one of the issues I am calling on to be renewed. The City of Kitchener was calling for it to be renewed too, and it was not in this budget. The calls of organizations across the country are clear. We cannot spend time patting ourselves on the back for investments from past years in the midst of a housing crisis.
I would invite the parliamentary secretary, as I have said to others, to come by my community and meet the people who are living unsheltered and calling for so much better. Will he come and visit?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:34:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern about making sure that our policies are also forward-facing, not just talking about the major historic investments we have made, but what we will do looking forward.
The plans we announced in the spring budget acknowledged the complexity of the issue by approaching it from multiple directions. That includes increasing supply, like the supply of deeply affordable housing, tackling speculation in the housing sector and so much more.
We will continue to prioritize housing, as we have done since the start of our mandate, unlike the Conservatives, who simply spew buzzwords instead of putting forward a real plan. They did nothing on housing when they were in government and continue to do nothing in opposition.
I am pleased to know that my colleague from Kitchener Centre shares our concern, and I hope we can count on the support of everyone in the House as we continue to work to ensure everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:35:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on March 9, I raised questions with respect to foreign interference here in Canada, and I asked a very specific question. We have more and more reports, specifically from Global News, that talk about the type of well-organized orchestrated interference of our elections, and what became abundantly clear from these reports is that it was being orchestrated by Beijing diplomats. The question I asked was how many of these diplomats had been expelled. Of course, I did not get an answer to that question, but we do know the answer to that question, and the answer is absolutely none.
Our security services are doing the hard work. They are identifying what the problems are. These reports are delivered to the government. We also heard from the Prime Minister's chief of staff that he reads every single report, so that would mean that the Prime Minister actually read these reports we were hearing so much about in Global News, which included the fact that diplomats were orchestrating and organizing the donation of funds to preferred candidates through an organization they called the “tea party”.
Absolutely no action was taken by the government to expel any diplomats who were involved in this. The government knew there were some, because CSIS delivered that report, and we know from the Prime Minister's chief of staff that the Prime Minister reads every single report. Why was nothing done? Why has nothing been done to date, with respect to that? We are now a month and a half later. Absolutely nothing has been done.
What is so embarrassing about this and so difficult for us to justify with our allies is that we have now heard the Prime Minister has been telling our allies that the government will never meet the 2% target for spending on our armed forces, as required by NATO. The blows to our reputation never stop, but we can look where we are now. The United States now has made 36 arrests, including an arrest of one who has information on their cellphone and photos of folks proudly opening a police station here in Canada. Not only do we not expel diplomats in this country who we know are actively engaged in foreign interference in our elections, but we do not make any arrests either.
The United States is taking decisive action on this. Here in Canada, what are we doing? Why are we always behind the eight ball on these things? Why are we always playing catch-up? Why can we not get in front of some of these things, and do something?
I have heard on the special committee on Canada-China relations from Canadian citizens who talk about the orchestrated harassment they endure from Beijing in foreign influence operations, and we have clear evidence that the diplomatic corps is actively involved in this. No one gets expelled. Why is the government so afraid to stand up to Beijing foreign influence?
498 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:39:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada, as I want to say very clearly to the House, takes any allegation of inappropriate or illicit behaviour by any foreign representative or diplomat in Canada extremely seriously, including interference in the internal affairs of Canada. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister have both been very clear that Canada will never tolerate any form of foreign interference.
The government, I think more than any other government I have ever experienced, has stated time and time again that foreign interference activities in Canada and violations of Canadian sovereignty are unacceptable. This includes harassment and intimidation of individuals, the establishment of illegal overseas so-called police stations and, of course, covert and malicious influence in Canadian democratic processes.
As my hon. colleagues are well aware, the Prime Minister relayed these messages directly to China's President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Indonesia last November. Our foreign affairs minister reiterated these same messages to her Chinese counterpart as recently as March 2 of this year, and had done so with her previous counterpart on more than one occasion. Global Affairs Canada officials have also repeatedly delivered similar messages to Chinese officials in both Ottawa and Beijing. Our message has been consistent: There is no tolerance for interference by the People's Republic of China on Canadian soil.
The government has clearly stated its expectation that China respect Canadian and international law, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and any domestic law. We will never tolerate any breach by Chinese diplomats or diplomats of any other country of the Vienna Conventions on Canadian soil.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs was very clear during her last appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in March, when she said she would never hesitate to order out of Canada any foreign diplomat suspected of wrongdoing. She would never hesitate to do that, should clear and concrete evidence linked to specific individuals come to light. As my colleagues know, and this was emphasized by the minister before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the expulsion of any diplomat accredited to Canada would be a measure of last resort. No decision would be taken without considering all factors and risks. This decision is never taken lightly.
The government will continue to choose the most effective tools from a wide range of options at our disposal to properly combat foreign interference. This includes diplomatic tools that may be subtle to some, but are very effective in preventing foreign interference before it starts. Sometimes that means stopping certain positions from being created at foreign diplomatic missions. For example, we denied China's request to create a new position at the embassy in Ottawa for the international liaison department of the Chinese Communist Party. It was inappropriate, and we refused permission to create it. Sometimes we stop certain individuals from being posted to foreign diplomatic positions here. In fact, very often the government in question will withdraw an individual's application as soon as we raise concerns.
Our government will also continue to ensure that China faces consequences for any illegal or inappropriate actions. The question of foreign interference is not one that is unique to Canada; this is a problem that our partners and allies around the world are also grappling with. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very clear that she is working with her counterparts from around the globe to share best practices. We will continue—
595 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:43:16 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:43:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is Groundhog Day here on Parliament Hill. When I raised the question the first time, the sum total of the answer was that the Liberals have had a stern conversation. It is a month and a half later and they have had a stern conversation, or they did not accredit someone. This kind of inaction actually emboldens someone. I think back to my father saying to me, “Don't do that” or “You shouldn't do that.” If I kept doing it six or seven times and my father just kept saying that I really should not do it, nothing actually happened. What we are doing to try to curb the behaviour is not working. What the government is doing to try to curb the foreign interference is not working. We actually need some bold action, like what is happening in the United States, with 36 arrests. They are taking it very seriously. Why will the government not?
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:44:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the hon. member's consideration on this issue, he is completely wrong. He is off the mark. If he has any evidence of individuals doing wrong, it is his responsibility to report that to the authorities. That is his responsibility. We cannot just cast aspersions in the House. We cannot just say anything we want without evidence.
I wish to be very clear. Our government will never tolerate any interference in any domestic issue that is beyond the rights and responsibilities under the Vienna Convention of diplomats in this country. Our minister and our Prime Minister have been completely clear: Any evidence that is brought forward will be dealt with seriously.
We will continue to operate to ensure that Canadians are safe and that everyone is following our expectations on domestic law, international law and international conventions. We will do that because it is our job.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am here in the House again to ask for financial support for persons with disabilities. I want to start with a story so that the government can understand how this is actually impacting people in my community.
Last week, a mother in her 70s came in to talk about her adult son who lives on his own and is about to be demovicted from an apartment he has lived in for almost 17 years. He cannot afford the new rent on the income he has at this point in time. This is what is really happening to people in this market-driven housing frenzy that the Liberal government has fed.
Once again, I rise in the House to shine a light on the urgency for persons with disabilities to have immediate income support as they continue to wait for a Canada disability benefit. While provincial and territorial income support programs have been virtually stagnant for years, the community is facing an ever-shrinking income while struggling to cope with the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing price of housing.
Through the course of the HUMA committee study on Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, we heard that about one million Canadians living with a disability are in poverty. We heard from the minister and her ESDC officials that the average gap between provincial and territorial support and the poverty line for persons with disabilities is $9,000, and there is no way to fill that gap. Overwhelmingly, we heard that these one million people are not eating enough meals daily and that their housing can be unacceptable and often inaccessible.
It is essential that the federal government step up immediately with an emergency benefit. Therefore, I ask again for the Minister of Disability Inclusion to provide this emergency response benefit for persons with disabilities while Canadians wait for the currently unfunded Canada disability benefit.
Canadians with disabilities face exclusion from society on a daily basis. The recent Auditor General's report on accessible transportation found that, in 2019 and 2020, nearly two-thirds of the 2.2 million persons with disabilities who travelled on planes, trains and other federally regulated modes of transportation faced barriers. Even worse, the risk of damage to their essential assistive devices is beyond unacceptable. Transportation is essential to people's daily lives, including for people with disabilities. The government should understand that. Persons with disabilities are more likely to rely on public transportation as they navigate this incredibly ableist world.
Education is another place where people with disabilities are facing barriers and exclusion every day, whether in the aging infrastructure that years of out-of-date schools have put in front of people; insufficient funding for school boards to fully include children with disabilities; or challenges related to accessing and applying for student loans, grants, tax credits and other programs that are supposed to give access to better education. It is just not working. Even in seeking employment, people with disabilities are excluded, with inaccessible workplaces, biases of employers and the stresses of coping with too many other challenges on top of employment.
The NDP knows that people with disabilities need assistance today. This includes better access to income supports, publicly funded pharmacare and dental care as part of improving the lives of persons with disabilities.
With the Canada disability benefit at least a year away, I implore the Liberal government to help persons with disabilities now with an emergency relief benefit. The disability community deserves it.
588 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, my friend, for her question, advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities and, furthermore, her excellent teamwork in getting Bill C-22 through committee and improving that bill at committee. I wanted to thank the hon. member for her tremendous advocacy and her great teamwork.
I want to especially acknowledge the advocacy of the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. She has been working tirelessly throughout her career to promote the rights of persons with disabilities. The minister understands the challenges that so many persons with disabilities face each and every day. She understands that many working-age persons with disabilities face a challenging income gap. That is why the minister has been working tirelessly to create the historic Canada disability benefit, an income supplement that has the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities.
Like my colleague, I too want nothing more than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible. I remind my colleague that, as set out in the legislation, the details of the proposed Canada disability benefit will be addressed in future regulations. These details include the benefit amount, eligibility criteria and other features such as the treatment of employment income. We will work out all of those details in consultation with our partners, including persons with disabilities and disability stakeholders, as well as with provinces and the territories. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we will continue engaging the disability community at every turn to ensure that the benefit is designed with their voices at the table.
I am pleased to say that engagement activities began in the summer of 2021 and that work has not stopped. We have also been working closely with provincial and territorial governments because they play a key role in providing benefits and supports to many Canadians with disabilities. This will help us ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit will be better off. It will also help us harmonize delivery of the CDB and ensure that there are no clawbacks to other benefits.
The Canada disability benefit has the potential to make a profound difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadian with disabilities. For that to happen we need to take the time to do things the right way. That is exactly what we are doing.
426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:52:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly do not question the wishes of the minister but what I do question is the understanding and the political will of the government.
I just wanted to point out that more people like the man whose mum came to see me just last week in my office will lose their housing and will go hungry. This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we will let people lose their housing and they will not be able to have a meal a day because we will not support the income supports they have been asking for.
Through the full consultation that I know this department has done, the number one pillar that people needed was financial security. Why will the government not look after the people in this country? Why will they not do it?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:53:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the story of my colleague's constituent is absolutely heartbreaking but that is the story that motivates all of us to work together as urgently as possible to bring about the Canada disability benefit, which is groundbreaking legislation. It has the potential to significantly reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities from coast to coast to coast. That is why we are taking the time to get it right.
Persons with disabilities know what they need. With their input we will determine all the details of the Canada disability benefit. We look forward to sharing those details with everyone, including my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 7:54:08 p.m.
- Watch
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:54 p.m.)
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
