- 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
- Feb/9/23 12:38:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my hon. colleague’s speech, but the interpreter said that his earpiece is too close to the microphone and that there is a risk of feedback.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is an honour to work with her at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We are currently working on a study she proposed on the impact of resource development on indigenous women and girls, which is an important issue.
For both our study and Bill C‑29, how can we make sure that we are working collaboratively, nation to nation, with indigenous communities and various levels of government, to draw on best practices and what is being done well in Quebec, the provinces and the territories, while steering clear of overlap in terms of jurisdiction?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I would like to come back to the topic of adopting this motion and particularly the importance of sending Bill C-27 to committee, to make sure all the details are in place. It is important that the committee do its work properly. This is very technical.
Quebec has Bill 25. How can we ensure that there is no interference between Bill 25 and Bill C-27? How can we combine the work of both levels of government? This is a shared jurisdiction. Could my colleague comment on that?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it always surprises me to hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about the division of power, about what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, as I see it, and under federal jurisdiction, as he sees it.
I have said this before, but I want to say it again for his sake. This issue has to be as non-partisan as possible because everyone has the right to a healthy environment. The problem is that the Liberals and the Conservatives politicize this issue far too often. I would even go so far as to say that the federal government has nothing to teach us. So much of what Liberal Party members do is greenwashing.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I will remind him once again, as did my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, that it is important that the bill respect provincial jurisdictions. It must complement and not take away from provincial programs. Quite frankly, it is about time that the federal government respect the fact that many of these aspects fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and that this province is a model in terms of equal opportunity and social safety net.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from King—Vaughan for her speech and for sharing her own experiences.
I myself had an uncle who was in a motorcycle accident when he was 19, and it had long-lasting effects. He lived with disabilities for the rest of his life. These experiences leave a mark.
Getting back to Bill C‑22, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on an important topic that she touched on briefly. Quebec has a significant social safety net in place, so this bill must complement the programs that exist already and must not override them. The measures in the bill must also respect the jurisdictions of the federal government, Quebec and the provinces.
I would like to hear her thoughts on these two big and very important points that remain to be clarified in Bill C‑22.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 6:06:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with much exasperation that I rise today to talk about a motion on long-term care. The major problem is that we are in the wrong legislative assembly. This is a crucial jurisdictional issue, since the federal government does not have the necessary expertise in this area. I realize that, unfortunately, I have had to say this too often. We have had enough of the federal government's paternalistic attitude. The government needs to do its duty and its job. It should not be using the COVID-19 crisis to exploit seniors for its own ends.
We do not want to trivialize what happened in our long-term care facilities. On the contrary, we want nothing less than to give them the financial means they need. I will get back to this in my speech. I am going to give some background information and outline the reasons for which the Bloc Québécois is against the motion. I will close by reminding my colleagues of the support of certain civil society groups.
As we now know, COVID-19 mainly affected seniors. This fact, combined with the critical situation in our long-term care facilities, finally forced the Quebec government to ask for the military's help on April 22, 2020.
Barely one month later, in May 2020, negotiations between the CAQ and Liberal governments got especially tense because of the federal government's refusal to extend the military's involvement. The government then used Quebec's request for military assistance as a pretext to announce, in its throne speech, its intention to impose Canada-wide standards on long-term care facilities. That was a twisted way of imposing its requirements on the provinces, instead of agreeing to their unanimous demand for an increase in federal health transfers equal to 35% of health care system costs.
To add insult to injury, the Liberal government reiterated its intention in last fall's economic update and at the 20th telephone conference of Canada's premiers, with the NDP's blessing, of course.
The Liberals are still clinging to that idea. In the 2021 election campaign, they promised $6 billion for long-term care facilities in exchange for Canada-wide standards. However, for the past several weeks, the Quebec political media has been abuzz with the findings of various investigations into the matter. The debate is ongoing in civil society and in Quebec's National Assembly.
This is therefore not the problem. Allow me to share why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the motion. The motion states that “we need to make sure the conditions of work reflect the care standards our seniors deserve”, which is something we agree with. We are all, as individuals, collectively responsible for taking care of our seniors. However, working conditions in long-term care homes and in private seniors' residences are not a federal jurisdiction.
The motion also states that “while the management of long-term care facilities is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, we share the goal of ensuring safer, better care for seniors”. Our response to this is that health care is not under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces, it should hold a summit and permanently increase funding for health care, as we have proposed.
Furthermore, the motion states that “in the opinion of the House, the government should work with the provinces and territories to...improve the quality and availability of long-term care homes and beds”. Our response to this is that Quebec already has a plan to overhaul its system and what it needs is funding.
The motion also states that the government should work with the provinces and territories to “implement strict infection prevention and control measures, including through more provincial and territorial facility inspections for long-term care homes”. Anything else? Quebec has assessed, and continues to assess, its actions during the pandemic. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec what to do or how to do it. This paternalism must stop.
Finally, the motion states that it should “develop a safe long-term care act collaboratively to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live.” Enough is enough. The Quebec National Assembly already unanimously opposed such federal standards.
We already had this debate before the pointless election called by the Liberal Party, which still makes me mad. In March 2021, I remember rising to speak when the NDP moved a motion to nationalize and impose standards for long-term care institutions. Members will recall that the motion was rejected by everyone, except the NDP of course. Even the Liberals voted against the motion. Here we are in the 44th Parliament, and the Liberal Party suddenly has amnesia. It has come back with the same motion.
I have to say, since the advent of the NDP-Liberal government, their position has become muddled. The one thing that does remain clear, however, is their appetite for interfering in things that do not concern them. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, set out how jurisdictions are shared between the federal government and the provinces. Pursuant to those two sections, health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.
The Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP are always trying to interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces, especially in the area of health care. However, the federalism they hold so dear requires that each level of government respect its exclusive jurisdictions.
Federalists sometimes argue that health transfers should have conditions attached. Otherwise, the provinces will take advantage of them to lower taxes rather than provide better services to their people. Our response to that argument is that it is not the federal government's job to lecture the provincial and Quebec governments. In a democracy, it is up to voters to sanction their government.
There is currently a debate raging about the issue of long-term care and the decisions that were made during the COVID-19 crisis. This debate continues, and it is up to the Quebec government to take action to remedy the situation. Then, in October, it will be up to voters, not the Liberal Party of Canada, to decide whether they are satisfied with their government's actions. In short, Quebec already has some potential solutions, including a detailed plan to increase the capacity of long-term care facilities as mentioned in a special report by the ombudsman.
The federal government will not be able to improve the situation because it does not know what is really happening on the ground. It does not understand these unique hospital settings. In response to the special report, the Quebec government has already presented a plan to overhaul the health care system.
I would like to remind the hon. members of an important date: December 2, 2020. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I had the opportunity to speak with Quebec's minister for seniors and caregivers, Marguerite Blais. She tabled a motion to denounce the Liberals' desire to impose Canadian standards on Quebec's long-term care facilities, which I will read:
That the National Assembly reject the Government of Canada's desire to impose Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly, as this falls under exclusive Québec jurisdiction;
That it express its disappointment that the federal government did not include an increase in health transfer payments in its last economic update, while the provinces must cover significant health spending costs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic;
That it call on the federal government to commit to not imposing Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly and to increasing health transfer payments to an amount equal to 35% of healthcare network costs.
Let us not forget that the provinces and Quebec are the ones with the expertise and experience in long-term care homes, not the federal government. Every long-term care facility has to meet safety and care quality standards in order to be permitted to operate. Standards already exist.
Obviously, the federal government has no business setting those standards for long-term care facilities on behalf of the provinces and Quebec, since it has neither the experience nor the expertise, as I said. Instead, the government should focus on doing what is expected of it and taking responsibility.
The Canadian Armed Forces' report on their experience in Quebec's long-term care facilities made it clear that there were already many standards and rules in place regarding infection prevention and control and the use of PPE, but they were not enough to stop the virus. The real issue is the ability to comply with the existing standards and rules. The main reason it is so hard to follow these rules is also clear: the labour shortage.
If the federal government really wants to help Quebec and the provinces overcome the pandemic and improve care for seniors, it must drop the paternalistic attitude, scrap its plan to impose Canada-wide standards that are ill suited for all the different social and institutional contexts, and increase health transfers, which will allow the provinces to attract and retain more health care workers.
One of the Bloc Québécois's demands is that the federal government increase health transfers to an amount equal to 35% of health care system costs. However, the government continues to say no, even though Parliament adopted a motion in the spring asking all parties to recognize the increase in transfers, which all of the parties did, except the Liberals, who once again found themselves standing alone.
Even civil society groups, such as various unions, stepped up in March 2021 to ask for the increase and explain why it was important. A Leger poll showed that 85% of people want this. FADOQ wants it. When I went to the latest summit on seniors' quality of life, everyone said they wanted an increase, no strings attached.
In conclusion, we are not the ones spoiling for a fight. The NDP-Liberal coalition is. They are delaying many of Quebec's demands, but we are not the only ones making these demands. The provinces and territories are too. These NDP-Liberal threats need to stop. Seniors must not be held hostage. The federal government must hand over the financial means to take care of them, and that means health transfers.
1780 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 6:17:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Montarville for his question, which gives me a chance to remind the House that mandatory minimum sentences are not without cost.
There is indeed a cost to all this, and it has to be paid. He put it well when he said that a prison has a cost. It costs more money to detain people in the justice system than it does to support them in other ways. They could be reintegrated, take their place in society and contribute to it, and receive more support to leave that life once and for all. There is a cost to prison sentences.
In the case of a first offence, the person will cost a lot less if they are in a restorative or alternative justice program and get out of the system rather than going to jail.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 4:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the less said about studies showing who had the best plan for the environment, the better. We heard all sorts of things. In the last Parliament, we saw that when the time comes to give a bill some teeth and ensure that the objectives are not just fine words, it is important to include specific targets in a bill in order to hold the minister accountable. We were not able to do that. The Liberals opposed it in the last Parliament.
The government continues to make massive investments in oil and the coal industry. We saw what happened in Glasgow. Clearly, with regard to the environment, the Liberals will have to try a little harder to walk the talk.
As for mental health, the federal government is meddling in Quebec's jurisdiction. I am tired of the federal government's paternalistic attitude, its lecturing and its attempts to interfere in health care, which is our jurisdiction. Why does it not transfer health care to us? Believe me, Quebec will be able to—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
