- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Foothills
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $161,345.02
- Government Page
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
- Feb/2/22 3:01:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Islanders are not looking for promises; they are looking for results. The agriculture minister said that Secretary Vilsack said they would have access to the U.S. mainland and Puerto Rico perhaps this week, yet still nothing has happened. Now, Secretary Vilsack has said there is absolutely no timeline to reopen the United States mainland or Puerto Rico to P.E.I. potatoes. That is not what the agriculture minister promised P.E.I. potato growers.
Do we believe the agriculture minister, the Prime Minister or Secretary Vilsack? Who is telling the truth?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/22 3:00:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister came back from Washington and said the U.S. mainland is going to be open to P.E.I. potatoes in the coming weeks and we will have access to Puerto Rico maybe this week. Shockingly, I guess it was a political dispute and had nothing to do with the quality of P.E.I. potatoes.
Knowing now that it is a political dispute, will the Liberals lift their self-imposed export ban on potatoes to the United States this month, yes or no?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 2:25:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, farmers are very thankful the Liberals will take no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to Canadian agriculture.
I spoke to P.E.I. farmers this morning and this is what one of them had to say: “With the stroke of a pen, the Liberals have destroyed everything I have worked for for six generations.” The agriculture minister is now saying this dispute will not be resolved until the new year, but CFIA is telling island farm families this half-baked ban will likely last until 2023.
How many harvests will be lost? How many businesses will be bankrupt? How many farmers will lose before the minister lifts the political ban on potato exports?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 2:23:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Malpeque could have asked the Prime Minister a question on the potato crisis in P.E.I. yesterday, but he did not do it.
The Liberal member for Cardigan had the message for Prince Edward Island farmers that no matter what happens, the government can help, but farmers will lose. He is right. Under the Liberals, farmers always lose.
The P.E.I. premier is questioning why the agriculture minister is not in Washington. Maybe it is because resolving this dispute is not even in her mandate letter. Why is the agriculture minister not in Washington, putting all her potato chips on the table and resolving this dispute?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 2:40:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would show that kind of fight with the United States when some of our commodities are at risk. He has failed when it comes to our trade relationship with the United States. He has failed on energy. He has failed on softwood lumber. He has failed on dairy and potatoes. Now the United States is threatening to instigate mandatory country-of-origin labelling, which will devastate our livestock industry. The WTO has already said that COOL violates international law.
Will Canada’s beef and pork industry be protected, or will the Prime Minister continue to outsource our trade agenda to the United States?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 2:39:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just admitted that the government self-inflicted a wound before the United States did anything. He has admitted that this decision was based on politics, not science. In fact, the agriculture minister has said the same thing. The Liberal member for Cardigan said that absolutely there is no doubt politics is involved in this dispute with the United States.
Will the Prime Minister end his half-baked ban? Will he expend some political capital and political will and end this dispute before Christmas?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 2:37:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what did the Prime Minister's Office say when Bud the Spud from the bright red mud rolled into Ottawa looking for help? They sent him to city hall. It was the Conservatives who brought the spuds back to Parliament Hill so they could not be ignored. However, potato growers in Prince Edward Island are frustrated that they are hearing nothing from their Liberal MPs. Three hundred million pounds of potatoes sit idle, hundreds of jobs have been lost and dozens of family farms are at risk.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing? Will he end his self-imposed export ban on P.E.I. potatoes before Christmas, yes or no?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:52:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, does front-of-package labelling violate the CUSMA agreement?
11 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:51:30 p.m.
- Watch
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is the United States is kicking our butt because it is getting these things resolved and we are not.
The United States has also indicated that the Liberal policy of front-of-package labelling is a technical irritant under the barrier of trade. Does the Liberal government agree that its front-of-package labelling policy is a trade irritant with the United States?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:50:45 p.m.
- Watch
Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The United States has already taken action and now shipping lanes are being rerouted from Canada to the United States, bottlenecking agriculture commodities and manufactured products in Canada not having access to international markets.
Will the Liberal government take similar action, as the United States has done, impose fines and name a shipping czar to try to resolve this issue, yes or no?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:50:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, will the Liberal government open an investigation under the Canada Transportation Act to resolve the shipping container crisis in Canada?
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:49:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as part of our agreement, we have a trigger for a billion-dollar retaliation if the United States, as it is looking to do, has put a bill in place to bring back COOL. Will the Liberal government impose that retaliation if the United States goes ahead with country-of-origin labelling, yes or no?
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:49:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not done so with P.E.I. potatoes.
Is there a retaliation if the United States were to impose country-of-origin labelling on our beef and pork industries? Will the government retaliate, yes or no?
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:48:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, will Canada's beef and pork industries be protected if the United States goes through with trying to implement country-of-origin labelling?
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:47:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government failed on potatoes, energy and softwood lumber. What is the next shoe to drop? Has the government spoken with its counterparts in the United States? Has the foreign affairs minister talked to the United States about COOL?
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:47:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, fighting for farmers in other provinces has put their livelihood at risk by a political decision by the government.
Does the government also understand that there are other industries at risk? What is the government's position on COOL?
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:46:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree with the agriculture minister and the member from P.E.I. that the decision to ban P.E.I. potato exports to the United States was not based on science but was based on politics, yes or no?
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:46:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government did it under CUSMA with our dairy processing and dairy products in that we have to have permission from the United States if we want to export those products. Now it has done it again with P.E.I. potatoes, taking the lead from the United States to put a self-imposed export ban on a Canadian product.
I would ask the minister once again, why has Canada outsourced our foreign affairs and trade issues to the United States?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/21 7:45:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert.
I am going to be focusing my questions mainly on the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Prime Minister has admitted that his self-imposed export ban on Prince Edward Island potatoes to the United States is not based on science but based on politics. Since his decision is not science-based, when will the Liberal government lift this export ban on P.E.I. potatoes to the United States?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
