- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-280, which amends the the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that 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 in the event that the purchaser has not fully paid for the produce and becomes bankrupt or subject to a receivership or applies to the court to sanction a compromise or an arrangement. My neighbour and esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is our agriculture, agri-food and supply management critic, co-sponsored this bill.
Given the demand in Quebec for this measure, which could be helpful for our agricultural community, we could have introduced it. One of our wineries in Shefford reached out to let me know that, as a producer and processor in the wine industry, La Belle alliance agrees with the amendment proposed in Bill C‑280. They said they see the amendment as additional protection for produces of perishable fruits and vegetables that could help protect small- and medium-sized agricultural businesses from suffering undue losses in the event of the insolvency of commercial buyers.
Le Potager Mont-Rouge said that this is a bill that they are really passionate about because it ensures that producer sellers are financially protected. Their profit margins are already razor thin, and they are impacted by many external factors such as price fluctuations, imports and climate change, to name but a few. They have been in a situation like this themselves and have lost thousands of dollars.
This testimony from these two businesses shows how important this bill is. The Bloc Québécois is attentive to their concerns, so we are in favour of this bill and support it. I will therefore begin by explaining its benefits and then talk about the division of powers and the litigation system.
First, passing the bill could demonstrate to the U.S. government that Canada has a trust mechanism in place for cases of buyer bankruptcy. Indeed, the lack of such a mechanism in Canada was one of the main reasons why, in 2014, the U.S. decided to withdraw U.S. buyer bankruptcy and insolvency protection from Canadian suppliers. The Canadian government had actually committed to developing a legal framework similar to the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA, and thus restoring coverage under their bankruptcy protection law for perishable foods to protect our industry from losses in the event U.S. buyers went bankrupt.
Groups have been calling for this since their PACA coverage ended back in 2014. This protection is necessary because food products like fresh fruit and vegetables are perishable, and a supplier cannot simply take them back and resell them if a buyer goes bankrupt. The protection is intended to allow licensed suppliers that have a contract with a U.S. buyer to take legal action against the buyer in the event of non-payment due to bankruptcy.
The new process will require the value of the shipment to be held in trust in the bankrupt buyer's name so that the producer can recover this amount as a creditor. Before 2014, Canadian fruit and vegetable farmers were protected by a U.S. law if they were doing business in the United States and a company failed to make payment or went bankrupt. This is no longer the case, and the alternate procedure developed between the two countries is very complicated, especially for our smaller businesses.
Quebec's agricultural model is at the family farm scale and on a human scale. Currently, without this protection, Canadian suppliers of fruits and vegetables have to go through a special process to file suit under this legislation in the United States.
According to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, suppliers have to deposit a bond equivalent to twice the amount required in the suit. Most suppliers do not have that much in liquid assets and the major buyers know that all too well. They are then forced to negotiate downward with the buyer to get at least some compensation instead of losing everything, especially since this type of debt is not a priority in a business' bankruptcy. Suppliers who are not protected do not have much chance of receiving decent compensation through the ordinary process. Under this bill, 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 pieces of legislation. The legislation stipulates that the buyer has 30 days to make the payment under the contract.
Under the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council initiative, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are committed to establishing comparable approaches in order to achieve the common goal of protecting fresh fruit and vegetable vendors from Canada and the United States from buyers who are not concerned with their payment obligations.
I will start with a bit of background. The legislation was first was created in the 1930s to try to protect vegetable producers from the multiple bankruptcies of their buyers. It then became an important tool in rebalancing the commercial relationship between producers and buyers. It is essentially designed to allow a licensed supplier who has a contract with a U.S. buyer to sue that buyer under the act in the event of a default in payment because of bankruptcy. The process will allow the value of the shipment to be placed in a trust in the name of the bankrupt so that the supplier can recover the amount owed as a creditor. Given the speed with which produce is resold by a merchant or spoils, it is quite rare that a fresh produce repossession situation will meet these criteria. This means that perishable food producers would be given super-priority status so they do not have to wait for the bankruptcy settlement to recover their property. However, in the context of the above conditions, producer associations explained that 15 days is not long enough, given that typical payment terms are about 30 days. However, 30 days is too long to expect to recover a product that can be resold. This provision is not well suited to the structure of the supply chain, which often operates with intermediaries such as wholesalers.
Second, with regard to jurisdictions, the most sensitive issue is the fact that Canada cannot really quickly pass a law like the one in the United States. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA, is a program to protect farmers in case of bankruptcy, but it also encompasses all of the dispute settlement mechanisms for perishable goods. In Canada, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act falls under federal jurisdiction, but the regulations surrounding contracts fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. A legal framework like the PACA therefore cannot be developed unless there are negotiations or a collaboration between the federal government and the provinces, which is what we are hoping will happen. One of the arguments put forward by the federal government is that most trade disputes are resolved before bankruptcy occurs and so most of the American framework deals with issues that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Since it is complicated to operate using multiple dispute settlement regimes, the federal government just gives up rather than trying to find even a partial solution to the problem. We need to work on that.
Third, the official figures are much lower and limit the timeframe for claims to about 15 days. The major difference between the government and the industry figures can be explained by the fact that in order for it to become an official statistic, the producer must file a complaint. Most of the time, producers do not necessarily use official channels because they are too complex, and even more so after the end of privilege. Producers often have special business relationships with their client and try to accommodate them. The argument that there are few claims or that they represent a small percentage of farm receipts is very subjective. Producers used to have protection, but no longer do. We are simply being asked to restore protection given that, because of its proximity and the nature of goods, the United States is by far the most important trade partner for perishable goods. Restoring this protection for our producers who do business with the United States is not far-fetched at all.
Although the government is putting forward some arguments to demonstrate that an insurance similar to PACA is not the best option, especially because of the cost of credit and shared jurisdictions, we will continue to defend this bill. We are under the impression that the Liberal Party seems to want to defend its friends in the banking sector.
In conclusion, this bill is simply a response to the agricultural sector. Two years after Canadian producers' preferential access to PACA was removed, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the issue. A number of key witnesses appeared before the committee. The NDP, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have all, at various times, pledged to fix the problem. From our perspective, it is clear that we need to move forward with this bill.
I thank my Conservative colleague for introducing this bill. It can make things better for businesses in Shefford, as I said in my introduction. Obviously, the pandemic was a unique situation, and it also exacerbated various issues in the agricultural sector.
I want to say one last thing. As the member for Shefford, I proudly represent a riding where agriculture is at the heart of its economy. This bill is a common-sense measure that gives farmers a little extra help to get through this difficult period, for their mental health, for their survival. As we know, farm succession is already facing several threats. Perhaps this bill will address some of the concerns of the next generation of farmers and give them the desire to continue, to produce what we eat every day and what sustains us. We need farmers.
Once again, I thank my colleague for this bill. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour, to support our agricultural model.
1742 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the future of farming.
This week, the Bloc Québécois has made a point of calling for more help for the agricultural industry, particularly for young farmers. It is important to recognize that, right now, farmers are not doing well from a mental health perspective. One in 10 agricultural businesses are at risk of closing in the next year because of all the problems.
How will the member's bill meet the needs of all sorts of farmers, particularly vegetable growers? How will the bill help them to get through this period of inflation, which is so difficult for them and for young farmers in particular?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent Shefford, a riding that is located in the region known as Quebec's pantry. We are proud of our farmers. Agri-tourism is at the heart of my riding's economy. I love going around to all the public markets and talking to local farmers.
Naturally, the subject of Bill C-282, supply management, is vital to many of them. During the last election campaign, I promised the Union des producteurs agricoles de la Haute‑Yamaska that I would fight tooth and nail for supply management and introduce a bill. I also made the same promise during a press conference with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the riding next to mine.
It is therefore with great humility and tremendous respect for the the work of the first dynamic trio who recently went to bat for the vital issue of supply management that I rise to speak on this subject. I am talking about my dear colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé, Montcalm and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
I will begin my speech by talking about the importance of supply management. Then, I will remind the House of the Bloc's historic role on this issue and close with the words of some farmers from my riding.
First, the bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include the protection of the supply management system as part of the minister's responsibilities. It adds supply management to the list of directives the minister must take into account when conducting business outside Canada, including in international trade.
Once this bill comes into force in its entirety, the minister responsible for international trade will have to stand up for supply-managed farmers in front of our trade partners. The minister will henceforth have the mandate to negotiate agreements without creating breaches in the system, as it did during the signing of the three most important international trade agreements of the past decade.
The bill has become necessary, not least because of the serious breaches that previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, opened up and negotiated in the last international trade agreements. These breaches in the supply management mechanism prevent the system from working effectively by attacking the integrity of its basic principles, namely pricing control, production control and border control.
In Canada, only the markets for dairy, table eggs, hatching eggs, and poultry, meaning chicken and turkey, are under supply management. This is a system that was put in place in the 1970s. It ensures that we produce just enough to meet domestic demand while avoiding overproduction and waste. It also ensures price stability.
Prices are controlled by setting a price floor and a price ceiling so that each link in the chain gets its fair share. That includes the consumer, who can be sure of getting a very high-quality, ethically farmed local product. Another aspect is border control, which includes very high tariffs and import quotas, preventing foreign products or by-products from invading our market. Because the market is largely closed to imports and there are price controls in place, producers do not end up in a never-ending race to lower production costs.
The current government is taking a number of worrisome actions that compromise the ability of Canada—and especially Quebec, which has a different agricultural reality—to choose the type of agriculture it wants to develop. In fact, the recent free trade agreements, particularly the one with the United States and Mexico, CUSMA, will have catastrophic consequences for certain products and processors under supply management.
Border control is the pillar most weakened by the international agreements. However, given that supply management has never come under fire from the World Trade Organization, or WTO, Canada has every right to protect its markets so long as it complies with the degree of openness established by the WTO.
If international agreements and the WTO give Canada the right to protect its markets, why have there been concessions? It is because Canada cannot cope with pressure from trading partners during negotiations. It is as simple as that. It succumbs to lobby groups and arguments made by other countries that want access to an as-yet untapped market at all costs.
Despite the new aid programs, which were a long time coming, it is abundantly clear that no compensation can possibly make up for the permanent damage caused by concessions in agreements with Europe, the Pacific Rim nations, the United States and Mexico. Accordingly, the Conservatives' argument about how compensation was promised under the Harper Conservatives during the opening rounds of the first two agreements is false.
Second, I want to stress the following point: The Bloc Québécois has always defended supply management in Ottawa. This is the second time that this bill has been tabled and, if not for the unnecessary election that the Prime Minister called in August 2021, Bill C‑216 might have made it to the Senate by now.
By contrast, the House had to adopt four motions unanimously to ask the federal government to fully protect supply management. However, the Liberal and Conservative governments presumably did not feel bound by this commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements. In fact, because of the concessions that were made, these agreements were catastrophic for agricultural producers and processors under supply management, who are now wondering about their future.
Supply management is a model that is envied around the world, especially in jurisdictions that have abolished it. In Quebec, agriculture is practised on smaller farms where there is a much greater concern for quality and respect for the environment. While Quebec's quality-centred agriculture sector is flourishing, with an ever-increasing variety of local products and organic farming, Ottawa is taking the opposite approach by encouraging more industrial agriculture.
Until the Quebec government is present at international negotiations and until it gets to act as the sole architect of agricultural policies, there is a serious risk that Ottawa will align the federal government with the needs of western Canada. The Bloc Québécois simply wants the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to keep the promise they have made more than once to stop making concessions at the expense of supply-managed producers. That is all.
It was Stephen Harper's Conservatives who got the ball rolling in 2008. Supply management first started crumbling with the Canada-Europe free trade agreement negotiations, because the Canadian government started putting supply management on the table, something it had never dared to do in the past. Since then, there has been one breach after another.
Supply management has always been a key issue to the Bloc Québécois. During the entire time that the Bloc Québécois had a strong presence in the House, which I remember well, as I was an assistant then, the government signed free trade agreements with 16 countries and fully protected the supply management system.
During the federal election that followed the creation of the WTO, in other words the June 1997 election, defending the supply management system was already one of our election priorities. That was quite a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to move a motion in the House calling for the pillars of the supply management system to be fully maintained. The House will recall that the motion was adopted unanimously by all parties. What is more, for practically every major negotiation, the National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion calling on the federal government to protect supply management. We are the defenders of supply management, the voice of supply-managed farmers.
Third, I want to share the words of farmers back home. Nancy Fournier, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby who is a member of the board of directors of the Haute-Yamaska branch of the UPA and part of the next generation of Quebec farmers, told us that she is proud of our efforts and our support for agriculture.
Denis Beaudry, a farmer from Saint‑Alphonse‑de‑Granby, said the following: “The bill is very relevant because we are fed up with supply management being used as a bargaining chip in treaty negotiations. From a more local perspective, the riding of Shefford is home to many supply-managed businesses, so when supply management is mishandled, the agricultural community suffers. I look forward to seeing whether the other parties will support the bill. The government said that it would no longer compromise on supply management. We will see.”
Valéry Martin, a communications advisor at UPA de l'Estrie, said the following: “Supply management provides stability and helps maintain the country's food self-sufficiency. Supply-managed farms are everywhere, keeping our communities strong. There are not many sectors that can provide this kind of predictability, food security and superior quality products without direct subsidies.”
I want to say one last thing. Without supply management, there would not be many people left in Abitibi, Saguenay, Lac‑Saint‑Jean or the Gaspé, because it helps ensure that there are family farms all across our beautiful Quebec nation. If there is one economic sector that is key to how our land is used in Quebec, it is the agricultural industry. The statistics speak for themselves. With $9.1 billion in sales generated by just over 42,000 farmers on 29,000 farms, Quebec agriculture is essential, important, vital.
Agriculture is going through a very difficult period, however. We are at a crossroads, where we will have to choose between following the trend of more open markets and protecting domestic markets in order to promote human-scale agriculture. We will need strong agricultural policies that will help local farmers make a living providing top-quality agricultural products to consumers.
Consumers are also placing increasing demands on farmers. Farmers are being asked to produce better-quality food that is more diverse at a lower price. They are also being asked to protect the environment and use Quebec's land to benefit all of society. As incredible as it may seem, despite the meagre support they receive, farmers are doing a brilliant job of rising to this challenge, despite the pandemic, the labour shortage, the disastrous consequences of the free trade agreements, the war in Ukraine and the inflation crisis.
We must respond to the requests of this sector that feeds us, that sustains us. Tomorrow, let us put partisanship aside and vote in favour of Bill C-282. We must take action.
1801 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 6:01:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, with whom I recently had the pleasure of attending the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Kigali. She and I met with the same Ukrainian elected representatives and observed the same geopolitical issues and the rise of a kind of autocracy and anti-West movements.
I want to go back to Bill S‑5 because it is crucial. We know that international conflicts, food insecurity and climate change are connected, and we know they will exacerbate global hunger issues.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about farmers. Farmers really want to be part of the solution to develop better food resilience and be supported through this transition. This is crucial, and it is related to what we are talking about in Bill S‑5 because it has to do with the traceability of what we eat and the safety of the products we ingest.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:37:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who spoke at length about agriculture, which is near and dear to my heart because there are a lot of farmers in my riding of Shefford.
The Bloc agrees with the Conservatives on the fertilizer issue. However, I would like to talk to my colleague about drought, which is causing problems for a lot of farmers. Climate change is a crucial issue. My colleague talked about the importance of eating properly. If we are to achieve true food sovereignty, we need to work on farming here. To protect that, we also need to tackle climate change.
Farmers are also asking for support as they try to go green. It is important to encourage that for a lot of our farmers. The tax is not what matters to them. They want us to work on climate change and reward good green practices.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member for a riding where agriculture plays a key role in the economy, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-234.
I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. Even though we do not really agree with the idea of undermining the carbon tax, there is no question that farmers play an important social role and that we all depend on their work. I can confirm that, given how important agri-food, agri-tourism and buying local are to Quebec's economy and more specifically that of the riding of Shefford.
That being said, I want to talk about three things in my speech. First, I will provide some background about this bill. Then, I will talk about the situation in Quebec, and finally, I will close by talking about the important role farmers play in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions.
To begin with, I will give a little bit of background. Bill C-234 seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which is commonly known as the “federal carbon tax” or the “carbon tax”. It is true that exempting some farming fuels that are essential for crop and livestock production from the carbon tax seems fair to us, given that the alternatives are still very expensive. Take grain dryers, for example.
Members should know that the carbon tax act provides for the general application of a fuel charge, which is paid to the government by the distributor upon delivery. There are already certain criteria for cases where the charge is not payable, including when the fuel is being sold to a farmer and is a qualifying farming fuel, which is defined under section 3 of the act as gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel.
The bill essentially proposes three things. First, it expands the definition of eligible farming machinery to include heating equipment, in particular for buildings used for housing livestock.
Second, it clarifies that the definition of eligible farming machinery includes grain dryers. Most grain dryers run on propane, which represents a huge cost.
Third, it extends the carbon tax exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane. The qualifying types of fuel are therefore gasoline, light fuel oil, marketable natural gas, propane or a prescribed type of fuel.
We cannot forget that the carbon tax is Canada's chosen method to fight climate change. The preamble of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act explains that one of the justifications for the act is the fact that some provinces have not developed and implemented greenhouse gas emissions pricing systems. In 2016, the provinces were given a choice between maintaining or creating a pollution pricing system that would have to meet the federal standard.
Quebec's carbon market does not include the agriculture sector. Quebec also has a fuel tax, but this tax is refunded to fishers and farmers.
Quebec implemented its own carbon tax system in 2013, the Quebec carbon market, which is a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. I will sum it up quickly by saying that Quebec's carbon market meets the federal standard and is primarily designed for industry, electricity producers and importers, and distributors of fossil fuels. It does not apply to the agriculture sector, and businesses can voluntarily register to participate in the carbon market.
Outside of the carbon market and the carbon tax, Quebec and Canada have various fuel taxes, including the federal excise tax on gasoline, the Quebec fuel tax, and the greater Montreal area gas tax. Furthermore, the GST and QST are applied to the sub-total after the calculation of other taxes. In those provinces where it is applied, the federal fuel charge is added to other taxes on fuel. In Quebec, farmers are entitled to a refund of fuel taxes, which applies to the Quebec tax.
I have provided the context for this bill. I would now like to talk about the fair transition and the importance of agriculture in making this green shift.
The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of a just transition. This means that we recognize that it would be unfair to expect workers and their families, as well as farmers, to make this transition happen overnight, especially since they are the first victims of the crisis in the energy sector and of the challenges associated with climate change.
Furthermore, even though farm fuels contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from the agricultural sector are caused primarily by livestock herds and the use of fertilizer. This does not in any way—on the contrary—prevent us from continuing to search for solutions that would reduce the energy used by grain dryers. In the short and medium term, significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada must come from the oil and gas production sector, the production of coal-fired electricity and motor vehicle transportation.
The western provinces are largely responsible for Canada's increasing greenhouse gas emissions. We have known since 1990 that they need to make drastic changes to their economy and their energy infrastructure. The post-pandemic economic recovery, which is necessary, is a perfect opportunity to do that. If they head in that direction, which they must, the Bloc Québécois will be happy to show solidarity and support measures that provide relief to those for whom the transition is a real economic challenge: workers in polluting sectors, farmers and families.
This method releases greenhouse gases, but that needs to be put in context along with other Canadian greenhouse gas sources, the type of climate and available alternatives. Weather and climate affect agricultural costs of production. The fact that the charge applies to farm fuels significantly compounds that phenomenon. If alternative solutions are available, the charge must be applied so that farmers improve their methods and opt for cleaner technology. This is an issue, a dynamic, that deserves our attention as parliamentarians.
The goal of climate policy should be to adapt to the effects of climate change, since the consequences of extreme weather events affect us all. A tool like the carbon tax is meant to act as an incentive to change behaviour, in other words to encourage the transition to clean technologies and renewable energy in order to reduce emissions.
As I pointed out earlier in a question, it is quite likely that applying the fuel charge to farming businesses may not be so effective if it does not push farmers to reduce their carbon footprint. This issue also warrants closer study.
Under the Paris Agreement, Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, to a total of 513 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. The Government of Canada has since revised its 2030 target upwards to a range of between 40% and 45% below 2005 levels.
Canada's emissions have increased by over 20% since 1990. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with Canada's agriculture sector increased 28% between 1990 and 2017, but have stabilized since 2005. Canada's agricultural economic sector emitted a total of 72 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2005.
In 2018, emissions from Canada's agriculture industry accounted for 59 megatonnes of greenhouse gases, or 8.1% of Canada's total GHG emissions. That is the figure and it is not that big. However, GHG emissions from on-farm fuel combustion were included in the total for the energy sector, while emissions related to farming fuels were grouped with emissions from the forestry and fishing industries in the “other sectors” subcategory.
The calculations are complicated, but to summarize, stationary combustion sources in the agriculture and forestry industries for all of Canada accounted for 3.8 megatonnes in 2018. That is a large number, and efforts will have to be made to reduce the impact of agriculture and farming fuels on total GHG emissions.
However, there is more near-term potential for reducing GHG emissions in the oil and gas, electricity generation and transportation sectors. The sector-based GHG emission structure varies significantly from province to province, particularly depending on the method of electricity generation.
Historically, the provinces of Alberta and Ontario have been the biggest GHG emitters. In Quebec, agriculture accounts for 9.8% of emissions. By way of comparison, Quebec's transportation sector represents 43.3% of Quebec's emissions, while the electricity generation sector accounts for 0.3%.
Quebec's main climate challenge is road transportation, whereas the 18% increase in Alberta's GHG emissions between 2005 and 2017 was primarily due to oil and gas operations, which account for 50% of the province's total emissions.
In short, if we decide to spare farmers the burden of environmental taxes, the western provinces will have to engage in the energy transition, diversify their economies to gradually phase out oil and gas production, and stop producing coal-fired electricity.
All economic sectors must play a part in combatting climate change, but we must also assess how effective government GHG reduction policies are in relation to the effort they require from citizens, workers and businesses.
A just transition means taking environmental, social and economic objectives into account. The energy transition is not meant to come at the expense of workers or the most vulnerable. The challenge is to develop public policy approaches that allow us to move beyond seeing economy and ecology as mutually exclusive.
I know that Quebec farmers agree with this and would like to develop better practices. They have a key role to play in the solution.
In conclusion, I want to talk about the 2019 propane crisis, which was a big issue when I was first elected. My cellphone was quickly flooded with calls from farmers. As all members know, we must never allow such a situation to happen again. It presents far too many risks for our businesses, and we need to be acting on their behalf. We know that businesses are still too reliant on propane and natural gas for running various other types of machinery, such as grain dryers.
1712 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We have a question. It is likely that applying a fuel charge to farming businesses may not be so effective. It does not push farmers to reduce their carbon footprint.
How could this issue be studied when we reach the next stage of his Bill C‑234?
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:13:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He talked about farmers, saying that they want to contribute to the environment, not harm it, but they cannot afford to do that.
Instead of continuing to supply them with oil, what does he think about helping our farmers to be part of the solution by promoting good practices and investing in greener measures?
Speaking of helping farmers turn to more renewable resources, why not stop investing in pipelines and oil? Why not instead move toward something greener, initiatives like the one on wood put in place by colleagues from the regions, including the member for Jonquière, so that energy sources are much greener and more renewable?
Transferring the money to other areas of research and development could help with that transition.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
