44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 3, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I note that my colleague brought up a really interesting point, which is that Conservatives talk about the carbon tax quite a bit, but they seem to stop short when it comes to trying to explain the rising costs otherwise.
There is a very good graph that was recently posted that shows exactly where the price of fuel has increased. Over the last year, the price of fuel has increased, as a result of the carbon tax, by 2¢ per litre. The price of fuel has increased by wholesale margins, in other words, profits, by 18¢ per litre.
Can the member for Timmins—James Bay provide some insight as to why the Conservatives are so hung up on talking about the increase of 2¢ per litre as it relates to the carbon tax and not the 18¢ per litre as it relates to the profits received by these oil companies?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader announced he was going to spend all summer during the hottest summer in history, as Canada was burning, promoting burning fossil fuels for free. It was so bad he got choked out of a number of the communities that were facing this. Even as their own communities were burning, like when Kelowna was on fire, what did we have? We had the member for Kelowna—Lake Country bragging about fossil fuel burning being free.
The connection between burning fossil fuels and the climate crisis was proven a long time ago, despite the amount of money Exxon spent trying to suppress that. The Conservatives have no plan. Only recently, they said they have something called technology. They do not really know what it is because they are against battery plant investments, solar and geothermal, but they are into burning the planet.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about palling around and burning fossil fuels.
In 2020, the member took a trip to Washington on sponsored travel, when most Canadians could not travel. In 2022, the member took a trip to Germany and burned fossil fuels worth $10,489. He talked about palling around with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. On this trip to Germany, he palled around with a group that actually did a joint press conference with Hezbollah, which is now a terrorist organization.
Can he explain to his constituents why he is palling around with Hezbollah terrorists?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was pretty bizarre, but I am not surprised. When I was in Berlin, I was actually meeting with the chancellor about clean energy. We met with the chancellor, unlike the four Conservatives—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:28:05 p.m.
- Watch
The member had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has other questions, wishes to raise a point of order or table a document, I would ask him to wait until it is the appropriate time.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was quite the honour to meet with the German chancellor and talk about hydrogen. It was a real honour to meet with representatives of the German Bundestag on whether Canada can supply clean energy.
That is rather different than the four Conservatives who got flown over to London, apparently by my cousin, Dan McTeague. The one bottle was $1,791 for champagne and he wants to talk about affordability. I am sure the member gets really high and happy when he gets a little bottle of Spumante Bambino, but they were spending $1,791 for a single bottle of champagne.
Who paid for that trip? Why were they there? People knew why we were there. We were meeting with the German government because we stand up for Canada. They were over there boozing it up for whatever reason. Let us know who paid for that trip.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:29:15 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:29:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would like me to table a document showing who he actually met with in Germany, so there is proof that the meetings I talked about are true.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:29:34 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the motion?
Some hon. members: Nay.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:29:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would be more than willing to let them table it, if they table all the receipts and who actually paid for—
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:29:47 p.m.
- Watch
That is becoming a point of debate.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the motion?
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, throughout this debate, I will try to bring us back to the matter at hand today, Bill C‑56.
Yesterday, at a meeting with entrepreneurs, I was asked what happened to the $900 million for housing. What does my colleague think of that?
It might be important to release that money as soon as possible. In Quebec, that money is eagerly awaited. It is time to try to stop this procedural wrangling.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, absolutely, the money has to flow. We have so many housing proposals out there and they are getting turned down one after another by the Liberal government or the money is just sitting there. We are not seeing the money flow. We are hearing the words flow but we need to see the money flow.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/23 5:31:47 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
An hon. member: On division.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, we want to get to a vote right away tonight. I know all my colleague are excited to get Bill C-280 passed.
It is a pleasure to rise once again to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act. I am encouraged by the support this common-sense Conservative bill has had so far, but we need to keep pushing. It is all the more important as we look to address the high food prices, rising inflation and strained supply chains we see in Canada today. I will take the opportunity this evening to reiterate the urgent need for the financial protection of this bill and the benefits it will bring, and will address some of the questions raised at committee.
We all know we need a doctor maybe once a year and need a firefighter once in a lifetime if we are really unlucky, but we need a farmer three times a day, every day. That is a fact. Despite their importance in supplying local communities with safe and nutritious fruits and vegetables, there is not enough financial protection for Canadian fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers. In circumstances where buyers become insolvent and fail to pay for fresh fruits or vegetables they were supplied, farmers are out of pocket for those losses.
To address this, Bill C-280 proposes to establish a limited deemed trust that would provide much needed financial protection for the entire fresh fruit and vegetable sector in Canada. This bill would give fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers priority access to the proceeds of sale, limited to the inventory, accounts receivable and cash on hand derived from the sale of the produce, during the bankruptcy proceedings of an insolvent buyer. This will help offset the loss of their sold produce.
For too long, the existing provisions within the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and adjacent legislation have not provided adequate priority for fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers when insolvencies occur, as these provisions do not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the sector. While the act technically allows suppliers to recover their products following a bankruptcy, it provides no rights when the product has been resold, is no longer identifiable or is no longer in the same state, which is to be expected with most fresh fruits and vegetables.
Fresh fruits and vegetables are subject to rapid perishability. Their shelf life can be sometimes measured in mere hours. By the time insolvency proceedings have concluded, the spoiled product is no longer of any value and cannot be repossessed or resold.
The superpriority provision for farmers in the act does not address the needs of fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers, who regularly receive payments 30 days or more after they have delivered the product. These longer payment terms are typical in the industry. They accommodate the rapid pace of trade and complex storage and transportation arrangements that must be made between many parties to get fruits and vegetables to market over the course of a short growing season. As such, the requirement in the BIA that fruits and vegetables must have been delivered within 15 days of bankruptcy to be covered under the superpriority means that most fresh produce becomes unprotected. This lack of financial protection for Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable sector has had devastating consequences, as farmers and other suppliers find themselves as unsecured creditors with little recourse for their losses.
It is well established that bankruptcies are considerably higher in this sector than in any other agriculture sector across Canada. They occur twice as often as those in livestock and are over 10 times the rates of the poultry and grain sectors, which are heavily regulated in Canada. The average net loss from non-payments, partial payments and delayed payments in the Canadian fruit and vegetable trade amounts to at least 1.53% of a supplier's gross revenue. This is a significant amount for those in the fresh produce sector considering their high overhead and capital costs, small profit margins and reduced risk management capability. While this amount is significant, it does not even capture the full extent of non-payment. Many firms simply close their doors and walk away from their businesses.
These losses are routinely absorbed by farmers, but they are not captured in bankruptcy data. These losses are especially devastating considering that three quarters of Canada’s fresh fruit and vegetable producers are small businesses with sales of less than $85,000 per year, many of which rely on a single buyer for the bulk of their crop. These smaller-scale producers do not have the capability to make credit checks on their buyers, negotiate conditional sales agreements or take other safeguards typical in other industries. Their ability to pursue repayment and other forms of recourse when a buyer does not pay is also extremely limited.
As one can imagine, bankruptcies within the fresh fruit and vegetable industry can jeopardize farms and livelihoods, and the constant fear of non-payment limits our farmers’ ability to invest in their businesses, grow and actually plan for the future. The bankruptcy of Lakeside Produce in Leamington, Ontario, this past winter demonstrated just how wide-ranging the impact that bankruptcy has had on the entire fresh produce industry. When it went bankrupt, Lakeside Produce owed $188 million to suppliers across the fruit and vegetable sector. There were 17 Canadian produce companies among Lakeside’s creditors, which accounted for $1.7 million in unsecured claims.
The lack of financial protection for the fresh produce industry in Canada also impacts our competitiveness and capacity to trade with the United States. Suppliers are no longer able to access the dispute resolution and financial protection processes that exist in the U.S. through the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, without incurring significant financial costs. This severely disadvantages Canadian produce businesses given the high volume of produce sold to buyers in the U.S. Having a financial protection tool in place in Canada would pave the way for the United States Department of Agriculture to restore Canadian produce sellers’ preferential access to the U.S. dispute resolution mechanism for fresh fruits and vegetables.
With the adoption of Bill C-280, we could finally ensure that Canada’s bankruptcy laws work for fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers in a form that recognizes the particular needs and challenges of the industry. By doing so, there would be considerable benefits for Canadians.
The financial protection would strengthen a pivotal industry in Canada, increase economic activity and bring economic benefit to the entire fresh fruit and vegetable value chain. With greater certainty and reduced risk, we would see more investment and growth as Canadian farms and greenhouses expand their operations and return operations to Canada that had migrated to the United States when access to PACA was lost. These measures would also result in a reduction in prices for Canadian consumers, which I know is top of mind for all MPs in this House tonight. We would expect to see a decrease in prices for Canadians by as much as 15%, which would save families as much as $900 million on their annual purchases of fresh fruit and vegetables.
While this bill was being studied at committee, there were questions about why the bill would extend the deemed trust protections to all suppliers of perishable fruits and vegetables, which is perhaps considered by some to be too broad. However, it is important to remember that within the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, the large retail trade, farmers’ markets, food service and hospitality trades are far less affected by the lack of financial protection. For the most part, it is the growers and others involved in the first sale, such as packers, brokers and shippers, who are most vulnerable to payment disruption and who would need the financial protection afforded by Bill C-280 the most.
That said, this industry is highly integrated, and bankruptcies involving producers, dealers, shippers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers impact the stability of the market. A bankruptcy at any point along the supply chain can result in farmers going unpaid, so it is essential that all suppliers receive the necessary protection. Crucially, protecting fresh produce suppliers equally is needed to access the equivalent protection offered by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act in the United States, which covers all suppliers along the chain.
Another question raised has been the impact of these financial protections on the banking industry. While it is true that by giving priority access to produce suppliers, banks will see their claims receive a lower priority, the benefits of protecting fresh fruit and produce suppliers outweigh the distributional impacts for the banking industry. Moreover, the banking industry would actually benefit from the increased predictability of payments when lending to those in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector. This has been the case in the United States under the PACA deemed trust, which has been reported to be a net positive to the banks, in addition to the produce sector itself.
Canada relies on boots on the ground, hands in the muck and rubber boots on the farm to provide fresh locally grown produce to our citizens. When these farmers suffer losses due to buyer insolvency, it threatens our very food security by reducing the availability of Canadian grown products.
We already know this is happening. Earlier this year, a Statistics Canada report showed that there was a significant decline in fresh fruit and vegetable availability for Canadians in 2022. More than three-quarters of all produce consumed in Canada is imported. As access to fresh produce from foreign markets is increasingly jeopardized by climate change, carbon taxes, trade protections and supply chain issues, our food security becomes more and more threatened right here at home. For much of our nation's history, Canada was far more self-reliant in the fresh fruit and vegetable trade, with production far outpacing consumption, but the failure to reduce risk and provide certainty to the fresh fruit and vegetable sector has seen this decline significantly. This needs to change.
Fundamentally, Bill C-280 recognizes the need to support Canada's produce sector, just as we support other agriculture sectors, by ensuring that Canada's bankruptcy laws recognize the particular challenges and demands of growing and selling fresh fruits and vegetables. Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable farmers should always be paid for the fresh fruits and vegetables they sell. By passing Bill C-280, we can ensure that our food security is protected and that our produce sector is strengthened. By putting this important financial protection tool in place for produce supplies, we will support the economy and lower costs for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, so let us get it done.
1827 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his tremendous leadership on this bill. It is important in my riding as well. I have lots of fruit and vegetable growers in Milton, and I want to give them a shout-out because I go to the farmers' market every Saturday in Milton. I love fresh produce, and we want to do everything we can to support them.
One of the biggest threats to growing fresh produce in Canada and certainly throughout North America and getting it fresh in our grocery stores or at our farmers' markets is climate change. Therefore, it is important that farmers continue to be a solution for fighting climate change, as the ones in my riding continually talk about. Can the member opposite talk about some of the climate events in his riding that affect some of the growers we can support, so we can help mitigate them?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we all know here in the House that climate change is real and that it is happening. However, when the bill first came up, another external event was COVID.
I met a farmer in the riding, and at the beginning of COVID, everyone was worried about getting paid. He came to me saying, “Scot, I don't think I'm going to plant my field this year because I'm worried about getting paid.” He said, “Look, Scott, I'm not asking for any handout from the government. I'm just looking to get paid for the produce I sell.”
Thinking about selling to a distributor, whoever that is, and not getting paid, he said, “Scot, it's $2 million to plant my field. I can sit at home and just pay the taxes and not worry about it.”
I said, “Don't do that because that's going to lead to higher food costs for Canadians and all kinds of pressures for Canadians.” That is just a little bit of background on how the bill evolved.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for York—Simcoe for this bill and for his speech. The Liberal government members just congratulated my colleague for his leadership on this issue. However, the bill before us responds to a request from the sector that dates back to 2014. This Liberal government has been in power for eight years, but, all of a sudden, it is applauding this measure. Why does my colleague think this was not done earlier?
It took a minority government, with a bill from an opposition MP, for this to start moving forward. What happened on the Liberal side?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
