44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/19/23 2:03:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the wonderful city of Saint‑Hyacinthe is blowing out 275 candles this year. This afternoon, I welcomed the mayor, André Beauregard, to my office and presented him with a commemorative plaque to mark this very happy anniversary.
What is now a city was once a seigneury. Its first mayor was Louis-Antoine Dessaulles, Louis-Joseph Papineau's nephew. In the 19th century, it was home base for one of the most active wings of the Parti patriote. In the early 20th century, it was an important and dynamic industrial hub. Saint‑Hyacinthe is now an agri-food technopole, with its farms, processing plants and research centres making an unparalleled contribution to Quebec's foodscape.
Saint‑Hyacinthe is also home to North America's only French-language school of veterinary medicine, as well as to the Institut de technologie agroalimentaire du Québec. There is always something going on there in sports, culture and journalism. The city has seen many important figures in Quebec's history rise to prominence. One thing is for sure: Saint‑Hyacinthe will continue to be an important part of our story.
I wish my city, our city, Saint‑Hyacinthe, a happy 275th anniversary.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. Why are we talking about sustainable jobs and not a just transition?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People can have conversations in our lovely lobbies. In fact, there are even cubicles just outside where people can have conversations without bothering everyone. They are very comfortable, so I invite members who are not interested in this debate to go there.
My question is very simple. I would like to know why the Liberals and the NDP are afraid of the words, “just transition”. Why are they talking about sustainable jobs instead?
That seems like a very “Canadian” choice of words to me, a well-rehearsed talking point. Why not talk about a just transition?
Why is that not the bill's title?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I hope the tomatoes are the only red things in my colleague's riding.
Who does he think stands to gain from this? Why are we here? Why choose such an ambiguous title? Why put such gobbledygook in something that should be very sensible and straightforward?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I did to deserve such applause and support from my Conservative colleagues, but I appreciate it. Sometimes it is possible to be transpartisan when one has good ideas. I tip my hat to my dear friends.
It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑280, which is extremely important for our farmers, particularly our fruit and vegetable growers. Bill C‑280 seeks to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to put vendors of perishable products, such as fruits and vegetables, at the top of the list by holding the production value in trust. Perishable goods are a special case when a company goes bankrupt because the supplier cannot simply take back its goods and resell them. This measure is necessary and our farmers deserve it. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C‑280.
As a representative of Quebec's agri-food capital, I am obviously very concerned about the agricultural industry and its artisans. I often say that they hold the only occupation that we need three times a day. That is why I want to thank the hon. member for York—Simcoe, who is sponsoring this bill in the House, and my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is co-sponsoring it.
I know how important it is for our two colleagues and all my Bloc Québécois colleagues to pass this bill quickly. The protective measure it will bring in is desperately needed across Quebec. We look forward to seeing it implemented. I share their eagerness to finally see our fruit and vegetable suppliers protected, so they can avoid seeing their crops go to the compost pile without being able to do anything about it. Not everyone in the House is quite as keen, despite the unanimous support this bill has received. We asked for unanimous consent to send Bill C-280 directly to the Senate, but unfortunately, some members would not give their consent.
This is a long-standing demand. The Liberals promised back in September 2014 to address this issue with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association if they were elected in 2015. They reiterated their commitment in 2016. The NDP and the Conservatives also made similar promises in their election platforms. It was also in their platforms in 2021, so I have to wonder why this has taken so long and why Bill C-280 could not be fast-tracked to the Senate.
We are now in 2023. The first promise was made in 2014 and we are in 2023. Better sooner than later, but better late than never. I am pleased to see that we are near our goal, especially given that the implementation of our protection will also help remove an irritant in our relationship with our American neighbours.
The sector's request of such a bill has been so strong since 2014 because on October 1 of that year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture revoked preferential access from its legislation for perishable agricultural products from producers here at home. Up until that point, Canadian and Quebec farmers were protected by this legislation in cases where American purchasers declared bankruptcy. Since Canada, for its part, did not have a trust mechanism for cases of buyer bankruptcy that could have protected American farmers, the U.S. decided to remove that security from Canadian suppliers. In short, they did that in response to a gap in our legislation.
Although an alternative process has been developed between the two countries, it is extraordinarily cumbersome, especially for smaller companies, which have to undertake the tedious process of filing a lawsuit. If they decide to take on this bureaucratic ordeal, they must post a bond worth double the amount claimed in the lawsuit, according to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. Then they are in a pickle, if I may say so. I am not just using that expression because we are talking about produce. In short, they are in a pickle and the major buyers know it. As a result, companies are forced to negotiate downward with the buyer, because they would still rather receive a fraction of the value of the fruits of their labour than nothing at all.
The U.S. is demanding that Canada provide protection similar to that offered by the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act before it will again give Canadian producers access to its program. Passing the bill we have before us today will provide protection not only for our producers doing business domestically, but also, with a little good faith on the part of the U.S. administration, for those doing business with American buyers.
I just want to point out here that the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act was adopted in the 1930s, so it is high time we adopted a similar mechanism.
I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, especially since you are my MP during House sitting weeks. I live in your riding while we are working here in Parliament. I hope you will hear my plea.
Over the course of many Parliaments, many committees have recommended implementing just such a measure. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which studied the bill, sent it back to the House without amendment. The committee approved it, with support from all the parties. Action on this is long overdue.
Before concluding, I want to make an aside and draw the House's attention to another issue related to food products and the difficulties that certain players in the supply chain may experience when a buyer goes bankrupt.
In my riding, there is a storage company that found itself in a difficult situation a few months ago. This company provides refrigeration and freezer services and serves as an intermediary in the transportation of perishable goods. After one of its clients went bankrupt, a bakery, the company ended up stuck with about 800 pallets of pies that did not belong to it. Since the bakery in question was under the authority of a trustee in bankruptcy at the time, the storage company could not dispose of the pies in any way. The situation went on for several weeks, causing major financial losses for the storage company since it could not get any income from the merchandise in question and it could not take on other contracts because the cargo was taking up half of its warehouse. The bakery finally hired a company to transport the stored merchandise, but that company was never paid for services rendered. The transportation company then turned to the intermediary, the storage company, for compensation for its losses, which put the storage company's financial viability at great risk.
At that point, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary. That was before the cabinet shuffle. The letter was cosigned by the Bloc Québécois transport critic, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. We felt that the intermediary was also a victim of the situation, and we asked the minister to consider including a provision in the Bills of Lading Act that would protect intermediaries responsible for goods in specific cases involving bankruptcy of the original business. Such situations become even trickier when perishable goods are involved, and I would like to take this opportunity to get everyone thinking about this issue.
In closing, to get back to the subject of my speech, let us pass this bill without delay, as its co-sponsor entreated us.
1290 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
