- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $138,707.52
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, before I get started in speaking to this great bill, I really want to pass on that today is a very special day for our family. Today is my 38th anniversary. Hello to Leigh, wherever she is watching me.
I rise to speak to Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act. I want to thank my colleague from York—Simcoe for introducing this piece of legislation in Parliament. I know that the member for York—Simcoe represents Holland Marsh, which is known as the soup and salad bowl of Canada. The reality is that Bill C-280 would not only be support for fruit and vegetable growers and producers in this region but also all across Canada. That is why I am so excited to support this bill today.
As a former farmer myself, I know that farming is not just a business, but it is a way of life for many Canadian families from coast to coast. This way of life is not an easy one. There are significant risks and uncertainties that farm families take on every year to grow food that feeds the world. Producers face many uncertainties every year, including unpredictable commodity prices, Mother Nature and the ability to obtain revenue for their product. Producers are forced to work within a very limited growing cycle and one bad year could put the family farm business at risk.
One of the most significant things that can impact a producer is when a purchaser of their product declares bankruptcy. When a buyer declares bankruptcy, the impacts to the producer can be devastating. Many of the farmers I represent are grain, pulse and cattle farmers. While this bill would not directly impact them, they understand the importance of protecting producers from the insolvency of businesses that purchase their product.
When I was a young farmer, a few years ago, I was in a situation where our local grain buyer became insolvent. The situation was made worse for our farm and others in the area because the insolvent party was not only buying our product but was also selling us inputs for the next year's crop. Preventable moments like this put undue stress on family farm businesses. Because of the seasonal nature of farming, farmers plan months and years in advance to keep their businesses operating.
Therefore, when a buyer who is the main purchaser in an area suddenly goes insolvent, this puts undue stress on the entire area. By the way, we are talking about an area the size of P.E.I. That is how big the purchaser of our product was and it did take down the whole region. I am sure members can imagine the uncertainty for this entire area and the undue stress it would have put on farm families. Pricing everything else accordingly while simultaneously tracking inputs so that a farmer can maintain a cost coverage to keep profitable is enough of a challenge. Adding bankruptcy, an entirely separate issue, to the equation can create a whole range of complications, crippling farmers without warning.
The way the value chain is designed, it requires the farmer to have a buyer and contracts in place before they even step into the field. That means they need to enter negotiations on how much they will sell their pound of product for, without any guarantee that they will grow a crop. That means the Canadian farmer is forced to be all in. They can do everything right. They can get the product to the buyer's doors and then not get paid for the product. It is a devastating blow for anyone when they do not get paid for the hard work they do every day. While the current mechanisms within the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act may be suitable for the wider agriculture industry and other sectors, the current approach does not work when fresh produce buyers become insolvent.
Fruits and vegetables are perishable. The shelf life of these products is not long. This is why the risk of the buyer becoming insolvent is so much more devastating to fruit and vegetable producers. Their products can rarely be recovered because they will have already spoiled. Without the ability to recover the product or access current mechanisms in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, fruit and vegetable producers can face a significant loss that could very easily put them out of business. Imagine the effect this would have on a producer's insurance, their farm and their family. There are only so many hits one can take before the ship starts to sink.
The uncertainty of producers not being paid for their products is very real, but it is also avoidable if we pass this bill into law. Members do not need to just take my word for why this legislation is needed. They can listen to the Canadian fruit and vegetable producers who have rallied behind Bill C-280 in support.
Jan VanderHout, the president of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, stated that this will have a very positive impact on our national food supply, lowering cost to consumers.
The chair of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association stated that, for too long, Canadian produce growers and sellers have shouldered the financial risk when selling their products. The challenges of the pandemic and the massive increases in costs they have experienced over the past few years have put many in an even more vulnerable position. He hopes that all members of Parliament will vote in favour of this important piece of legislation to support the long-term viability of their sector and send a message to their growers and sellers that we have their backs.
While I said there are reasonable protections for producers, there is a lack of protection for them within the banking industry itself. I believe that too often business people, with no understanding of how the agriculture industry operates, undertake uncalculated risks that could undermine the survival of the farms they do business with. That is why I am so grateful to my colleague for bringing this bill forward in the House of Commons and why I am so proudly supporting it.
As a lifelong farmer, I know that many farmers have faced challenges where they wished there was a mechanism in place to protect from the devastation of an insolvent buyer. It would allow producers to have more protection from the buyers who hold their very livelihoods in their hands. Bill C-280 would build that certainty into the financial landscape. This increased certainty would allow for reduced produce costs that could be passed on to the grocery cart of Canadians. With food inflation limiting how many fresh fruits and vegetables Canadians can afford, reduced costs are needed now more than ever.
This bill is a practical solution to a very serious problem. Farmers should not have to fear being shortchanged when their buyer goes insolvent. It is a common sense approach for the common people who feed our country and the world. The bottom line is that our agriculture producers need to get paid for what they grow. Anytime that system breaks down, the stabilization of the entire food supply is at risk. If we do not pass this bill, we are continuing to set up our fruit and vegetable producers for failure.
Now, more than ever, it is critically important that we send this very clear signal to our agriculture producers across the country. The NDP-Liberal government has neglected farmers for far too long. By passing Bill C-280, it has a chance to stand with Canadian producers for once.
In closing, I want to mention that one of Canada's newest vegetable producers, Vermillion Growers, earlier this year opened a state-of-the-art tomato greenhouse in Dauphin, Manitoba. The folks at Vermillion Growers are working tirelessly to become a leader in growing fresh, local produce that will feed Canadians across the country.
I am very fortunate to represent this new business in Parliament, and I know that Bill C-280 will support local growers just like them. I hope all members in the House will support Canadian fruit and vegetable producers by passing Bill C-280.
1379 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:49:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, could the member expand a bit more on what impacts the transportation system had on the grain handling in 2013 and 2015 and how that impacted the farmers? That grain did not hit the marketplace in Vancouver until a year and a half later. Could the member comment on what negative impacts that had on farmers and on how this act would not react to that or solve those kinds of problems?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 7:58:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the puzzling thing. I have a question for the NDP. It is supposed to be for the working people. It does not matter if they are male or female. When I think of the NDP, working families is its history, but it seems to have forgotten about that.
My speech was all about the holes. It was all about the things we tried to bring forward as Conservatives that were not addressed by the NDP or the Liberals. I do not understand that.
Right now, there is a system where a doctor or a nurse making six figures will get the subsidy as long as they have a day care spot. However, the parents working out there on the farms or in the trucking industry do not get it at all. How can the NDP square that off?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the problem with the bill is that it is fundamentally flawed. With all due respect to my colleague, I do not think anybody really appreciates the impact this is having on rural Canada and the way of life or the way we live in rural Canada. I cannot imagine trying to defend my livestock. When I farmed, I had cattle, and there are coyotes that come around. When the mother cow is having her calf, there are packs of wolves and coyotes that will come and kill everything. A farmer needs a gun to fix that. The problem is that this bill is attacking that very farmer.
An hon. member: That is false.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the event that Bill C-21 receives royal assent, I trust that these facts will serve opponents of Bill C-21 in their legal battles in court.
Bill C-21 was a disaster from the day it was introduced, but the defining moment for Bill C-21 was when the Liberals introduced amendments at the committee stage that would have effectively banned thousands of firearms used by hunters across Canada. I mention this because it proved once again that there is a stark difference between what the government is telling Canadians and what it is actually doing.
The Liberals claim they are taking guns away from criminals when, in reality, they are taking firearms away from law-abiding hunters. They claim they are tackling violent crime, but violent crime has increased by 32% since the Liberals took office. They claim that they carefully consulted with stakeholders on this legislation, but they failed to heed the advice of the Canadians who were most impacted.
Conservatives called their bluff and continued to fight for millions of law-abiding firearms owners across Canada. The Prime Minister spent weeks telling Canadians that firearms used for hunting would not be banned. The truth was finally exposed when he admitted, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. After weeks of outrage from Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous communities and even from members of the government's own party, the government paused its hunting rifle ban.
However, the government turned to Bill C-21 to push it through Parliament. The Liberals moved a closure motion that shut down debate in the House of Commons. They limited the number of committee meetings on this bill. They moved time allocation to shut down debate at committee, and they forced MPs to vote on amendments without studying their full impact.
Therefore, here we are. Hunters do not know which firearms will be banned. The future of Olympic sport shooting in Canada is in jeopardy. Canadians are wondering who will be appointed to the new firearms advisory committee. So much for the sunny ways that the Prime Minister once promised.
Conservatives support common-sense solutions that tackle the root cause of crime. This means going after criminals, getting tough on crime and fixing the broken bail system. That is why Conservatives support cracking down on border smuggling to stop the flow of illegal guns. It is why Conservatives support measures that bring back serious sentences for violent offenders. It is why Conservatives support implementing bail reform to ensure that repeat violent offenders remain behind bars as they await a trial. Instead of focusing on this, the Liberals are targeting law-abiding Canadians in the name of public safety. We have seen no evidence to suggest that taking firearms away from law-abiding firearms owners would reduce crime. As a matter of fact, licensed firearms owners are some of the most tested, vetted and lawfully responsible Canadians in this country.
When it comes to the impacts that Bill C-21 will have on public safety, the chief firearms officer in Alberta stated the following:
Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.
One of the most pressing issues for the Canadians I represent is the rate of rural crime. We know that criminals specifically target rural Canadians because of the lack of law enforcement in rural areas. I hear the stories of seniors watching their sheds being robbed in broad daylight because criminals know that the police do not have time to respond. Rural Canadians are waking up to discover their vehicles stolen, only to find them burned in a field down the road. I was in Swan River last month, a rural town of 4,000 in Manitoba, where nearly every business has bars on the windows and buzzers on the doors to prevent robbery. I can assure members of this House that law-abiding firearms owners across Canada are not committing these crimes; unfortunately, the current government is more focused on targeting rural Canadians who legally own firearms than on targeting rural crime.
In conclusion, I am troubled to see another attack on law-abiding firearms owners being pushed through Parliament. I am even more surprised to see the NDP members who represent rural ridings failing to represent their constituents. The NDP pretends it is standing up for rural Canadians, when in reality, it only stands up for its Liberal coalition partners.
As I mentioned earlier, I represent a completely rural region where most people own a firearm or know someone who does. It is a region where firearms are seen as a tool and not as a weapon. I understand how rural Canadians feel because I am one of them. For those reasons, I will again be voting against Bill C-21 as yet another attack on law-abiding firearms owners.
872 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21. It has never been more clear how disconnected the current Liberal government is from rural Canadians. Firearms are tools for millions of Canadians, especially those who call rural Canada their home.
I am a law-abiding firearms owner myself, just like millions of other Canadians across this country. I represent a region in this House of Commons that comprises rural communities and rural Canadians. The largest community I represent is smaller than 10,000 people. I am also a farmer who, just like thousands of other farmers, uses a firearm, not as a weapon but as a tool to protect my farm. When I speak to Bill C-21, I speak from an understanding of what a firearm means to the rural way of life.
Rural Canadians share the understanding that the firearm is a tool. It is an understanding shared by first nations, hunters and law-abiding firearms owners all across this nation. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government has few members in rural regions and, therefore, little representation from rural Canada. When I see the government display such a blatant disregard for the rural way of life, I fear it has made a calculated political decision to write off the views of rural Canada for its own political gain. After all, rural Canadians did send the Liberals a strong message at the ballot box in the last election. The government has no regard for the concerns, the priorities or the way of life of rural Canadians.
The cost of the neglect displayed by the government toward rural Canadians is a direct reflection of an increasing urban-rural divide, and it is a divide that I fear will only grow larger the longer the Prime Minister remains in power.
This is a very important matter, and I draw to the Speaker's attention that quorum is not present in this chamber.
322 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the suggestion of arm's length and, in developing this committee around legislation, appointing someone who is at arm's length.
In the member's opinion, what is the definition of arm's length in developing the bill? Would that include someone from the Trudeau Foundation? Would it include some sister-in-law from somewhere? What is the actual definition of arm's length in the member's opinion?
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is very important. The key takeaway is that this type of legislation is long overdue. That is why it is so important to get the amendments right and get this bill to committee as quickly as possible so we can all work on it. Let the experts review it and let the members get at it, but also let the industry get at it so we can come up with really good legislation to benefit all Canadians, especially farmers.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:10:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the cost of food production in Canada is soaring because of the government's failed carbon tax. A family farm is now expected to pay $150,000 in carbon tax every single year. Families will pay over $16,000 a year in groceries. It is no surprise that Canadians are visiting food banks at record rates: The Prime Minister has failed the producers who put food on the table.
It does not need to be like this. Conservatives will stand up for farmers, ranchers and consumers, and we will axe the failed carbon tax.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has launched the largest attack on law-abiding hunters in Canadian history. The government's proposed amendments to Bill C-21 would effectively ban hundreds of thousands of firearms used for hunting.
Hunting is a Canadian tradition. It is a way of life for millions of rural, remote and indigenous Canadians. However, the Liberal government has attacked these Canadians since it took office. Its own minister, who is supposed to stand up for rural Canada, is in favour of this attack on hunters. That is no way to stand up for rural Canada.
Yesterday, deer hunting season closed for most hunters in Manitoba. Unfortunately, these hunters do not know if they will be using their hunting rifles next year.
My message to the out-of-touch Liberal government is this: Hunters are not the problem, so just leave them alone.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/28/22 5:02:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to present petition e-3940, which has been signed by over 800 Canadians who are calling on the Liberal government to cancel the planned fertilizer reduction policy.
Canadians understand limiting fertilizer would decrease food production and, therefore, further increase the cost of food at a time of record inflation. They also know limiting fertilizer would increase the costs to farmers and hinder economic growth. This also comes at a time when Canadians are using food banks at record rates.
Canadians want their government to stand up for Canadian farmers and cancel the fertilizer reduction plan. I wholeheartedly support them.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 9:28:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I just want to know something. The tariff on fertilizer is disproportionately impacting eastern Canadian farmers, because they have to import. They are the only farmers in Canada who have to import fertilizer. Does my colleague know how much that is costing eastern Canada?
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 9:10:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, this is a direct supply chain issue.
It is no secret grain prices have gone up by 100% to 150% in several commodities, increasing farmers' income. That is why the farm receipts are going up. It is simple math. They have not produced any more. There have been severe droughts. About half of my riding was droughted out last year. They did not produce more receipts, but the value of the grain went up by double. That is why the receipts are up.
As for income tariffs and what is going on with fertilizer, not only is the world supply of fertilizer being shorted because of the Russian supply chain, but to add insult to injury to our Canadian farmers, the government has also added a tariff, which is making everything more expensive, and it is just in Canada. It is back to that “Justinflation” type of process that is going on here that we all experience in Canada.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 9:08:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I have always wanted to answer this question for the farmers in eastern Canada.
They are disproportionately being impacted by the fertilizer tariffs. Forty per cent of the fertilizer that comes into eastern Canada, and that is Quebec east, is imported, so they pay the most tariff out of all the farmers across Canada. The fertilizer trade is a global phenomenon. Forty per cent of the nitrogen that comes out of the world's production of fertilizer comes out of Russia or Russian-owned assets.
Putting a 35% tariff on Canadian farmers is fixing nothing. It is actually penalizing Canadian farmers. The Liberal government seems to be very good at that.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the prairies. I am always eager to speak to any legislation that will impact the prairies, so I want to thank my hon. colleague from Manitoba for his interest in our province and in the Canadian prairies.
The fact that this bill was introduced as a private member’s bill and not as a government bill shows the lack of priority the government continues to display toward the Canadian prairies. I sincerely hope that more members, such as my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, call on the government to support the Canadians who proudly call the prairies their home.
Bill C-235 is an attempt to increase local collaboration and build a green economy in the prairie provinces. I applaud the intent of the legislation. However, I cannot help but notice the lack of focus on agriculture.
I have always said that Canadian agriculture should be part of the solution and not treated as part of the problem. When it comes to the environment, Canadian farmers are world leaders in environmental leadership, and their record proves it. They are some of the most sustainable stewards of the natural landscape across our country, and their efforts to preserve and conserve the environment should not go unrecognized. Any plan to build a green economy must include Canadian agriculture, especially in the prairie provinces.
This is why I find clause 5 of Bill C-235 so disturbing. Clause 5 states that the Minister of Industry must “prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework, setting out the Minister’s conclusions and recommendations” on this green economy.
The legislation states that the minister must collaborate with “the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces”. However, it abruptly stops short of including the Minister of Agriculture.
How can a plan for the Canadian prairies not have the minister responsible for agriculture at the table? Agriculture is an economic pillar for the Canadian prairies. Any plan to grow a green economy must include agriculture. If this bill makes it to committee, I urge members of this House to amend it so that Canadian agriculture is included. The Minister of Industry should be mandated to consult with the Minister of Agriculture on any plan to green the economy, especially in the Canadian prairies. I believe that including this would dramatically improve the bill.
Additionally, the absence of agriculture is shown in subclause 3(2) of Bill C-235, which is focused on consultation. Subclause 3(2) would require the minister to consult with the provincial government representatives responsible for transportation, environment, and employment, but does not require the minister to consult with the provincial agriculture representatives.
Canadian farmers and ranchers deserve a seat at the table. Bill C-235 could easily be improved by including agriculture in the provincial consultation process.
I should also note that I have a lot of questions about the metrics that will be used to determine the outcomes of Bill C-235. Subclause 3(3) of the legislation states, “The framework must include measures that promote economic sustainability and growth and employment in the Prairie provinces”. However, how the government will measure these targeted outcomes appears to be unknown.
The bill also requires the Minister of Industry to prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework. However, how the minister will determine what is considered effective is also unknown.
My constituents know that I have never believed in the Ottawa-knows-best attitude. Unfortunately, I fear that this bill may only fuel this approach by adding a new layer of red tape and regulation to economic development at a time when we should be reducing it.
I find it interesting that Bill C-235 is a bill focused on improving the environment within specific provincial boundaries because it was only a few years ago when the Liberal government rejected Manitoba’s very own green plan, which was specifically designed to meet the needs of the province. I strongly believe that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work for environmental policy, and I hope that the government will one day acknowledge this too.
I do applaud the fact that the bill would give priority to making use of new sources of energy, including nuclear. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I have heard loud and clear that we will never meet our climate goals if we do not embrace nuclear energy. The government must grow Canada’s nuclear industry, and I am pleased to see the member for Winnipeg South Centre acknowledge that.
In conclusion, I support the spirit of Bill C-235 to improve local engagement in building a greener economy, and I thank my colleague for focusing on a region that we both proudly call home. However, I have major concerns with the blatant neglect of Canadian agriculture in the bill. Simply put, there would be no prairie economy without agriculture, and Bill C-235 fails to acknowledge this in its current form.
I hope that my remarks and suggested changes regarding this legislation are considered by members during its consideration in committee. I am always happy to work with any member of the House to grow Canadian agriculture and grow the Canadian prairies.
930 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 3:05:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals' environmental policies are hurting Canadian farmers. Whether it is the carbon tax or fertilizer restrictions, the list goes on and on.
However, last week, Canadian farmers received shocking news. The Minister of the Environment admitted he has never visited a Canadian farm since he was appointed. If the minister is willing to walk all over Canadian farmers, why will he not walk on a family farm?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a matter of priorities. As a farmer, if I were in eastern Canada, knowing that my government has put a 35% tariff on the fertilizer I need to buy to put in this crop, I would be absolutely horrified and so frustrated. There is no one in the House, except the Conservatives, standing up for farmers across this country.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the problem with all of these programs and all of these things is that they are all based off of the carbon tax, which is a foundational problem for all of us in rural Canada. It is disproportionately applied. As I said in my speech, it is increasing costs by up to $12 an acre for farmers. This Liberal government's approach to this is just basically not acceptable.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/25/22 11:36:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe, and Putin's war is fuelling global food insecurity. Canadian farmers want to maximize crop production to keep feeding the world, but the NDP-Liberal government is threatening our potential by pushing forth new fertilizer restrictions. Now more than ever, Canada should be encouraging crop growth, not restricting it.
Why is the NDP-Liberal government reducing our potential to feed the world by adding more taxes and regulations onto Canadian farmers?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
