Bill C-280

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust – perishable fruits and vegetables)

This enactment amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that the 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 fruits or vegetables and becomes bankrupt or the subject to a receivership or applies to the court to sanction a compromise or an arrangement.

[Brad Wiseman, Chief Financial Officer, EarthFresh Farms Inc.]

Thank you very much.

EarthFresh Farms Inc. is a Canadian produce company based in Burlington, Ontario, that specializes in growing, packing and distributing potatoes, especially organic potatoes and exclusive premium varieties, to retailers and food service companies in Canada and the U.S.

With over 15,000 acres of its own varieties of potatoes, the company produces the largest stock of exclusive potatoes in North America. Overall, we ship 450 million pounds of potatoes to Canadians from coast to coast. As well, we have four packing facilities. We have one in P.E.I., which is the largest fresh packing facility for potatoes. We have our head office in Burlington, Ontario. In Millgrove, Ontario, we have a growing, packing and storage facility. We have a new Atlanta, Georgia, operation, where we're also a member of PACA.

I'd like to thank AAFC for the ongoing support, the National Research Council and IRAP for helping us drive growth, innovation and the significant benefits of Canada's support for all the projects that they have funded. We'd like to thank Innovation Canada for the accelerated growth service program that we're very proud to be part of.

Thank you for allowing me to be a witness with respect to Bill C-280. It is exciting how close we are, but there's still further work to be done. I'm here to represent the Canadian processor and highlight the financial challenges the bill will have throughout the entire value chain. The value chain is the producer, the processor, wholesaler, retailer, food service and then eventually the product gets to the end consumer. The end result will be an increase in prices for the end consumer due to the increased cost of borrowing for working capital requirements at each stage of the value chain.

The key summary points are as follows.

Ensuring Canadian producers are protected under the bill in its current state will cause processors like EarthFresh to have priority payables with the producers. Priority payables, like payroll, taxes and pension costs, are deducted under all operating, banking and borrowing base calculations. This will cause processors not to have the ability to utilize any portion of their operating facilities with lenders.

Companies throughout the value chain will be forced to invest significant reserves in the business or find alternative sources of high interest financing because nothing will be secured against those facilities. This will create significant challenges for businesses throughout the value chain to grow and have innovation.

Potentially, prices for the end consumer could increase by a minimum of 5% in order to find alternative financing solutions, such as the factoring of AR or AR insurance.

As members of the CPMA, which we're very proud of and involved with, we have discussed the challenges from the processor perspective. Unfortunately, the current Bill C-280 does not have the correct solution. In addition, further investigation has to be done to understand the material financial challenges it will cause throughout the value chain.

The overview of key concerns has been discussed, but right now there's still insufficient analysis of the financial effect throughout the entire value chain. We need to take our time. We need to work with the lending industry, the banks, to see how they will interpret Bill C-280 right now. We cannot do it after the fact because it will have a significant financial burden on the entire value chain if it moves forward in this state.

Now we have the chance to get it right before we move forward. I have looked at the analysis that we currently have. Right now, it dates back to 2015, so there's further work to be done.

As well, current U.S. banks deduct the priority payables from the borrowing base. This is confirmed by my own direct financing experience with U.S. national and regional banking institutions.

To summarize, I look forward to further discussions of the issues and solutions. As well, I have the following suggestions.

Quantify the impact to processors and other agri-food businesses. This can be done by engaging in direct conversation—this is, for me, the most important—with Canadian banking institutions, with Farm Credit Canada and EDC, noting that the majority of FCC businesses are with term loans that only have collateral on assets outside of working capital; with more businesses in the value chain; and finally, with corporate lawyers who have a key understanding of Canadian and U.S. financing.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, colleagues. I apologize for the delay.

We're having some sound issues with Mr. Turnbull. We're going to try to figure them out, but we'll get started. From what I understand, Mr. Turnbull is not up for questions in this first hour, so I think we can proceed to keep us on schedule. Hopefully, before we go to the second hour of discussion on the environmental agriculture report, we can get Mr. Turnbull back online.

We'll proceed with what we have for this meeting.

Colleagues, welcome to meeting number 69 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Today's meeting is happening in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be available via the House of Commons website. So that our guests are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

I know, Brad, your kids are watching, but no screenshots of how well dad is doing today are allowed, if you don't mind.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. If interpretation is lost, please inform me as quickly as possible, and we'll try to get that squared away before we proceed.

To our guests, before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. You'll see the red light on your microphone turn on, and then you'll be ready to go. When speaking, for the interpreters, speak as slowly and succinctly as you can.

To my colleagues, I remind you that all comments must be made through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 17, the committee will resume consideration of Bill C-280, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust – perishable fruits and vegetables).

I would like now to welcome our witnesses. With us today we have, from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Ron Lemaire, president. From EarthFresh Farms Inc., we have Brad Wiseman, chief financial officer.

You'll each be given up to five minutes for your opening remarks. I will give you a signal when you have one minute left to wrap up your comments, and then we will begin our questions from the members of this committee.

Moving forward, we'll start with Mr. Wiseman from EarthFresh Farms. You have five minutes, please.

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, and tonight I bring them in person to the debate on Motion No. 26.

I want to begin by asking a question: What is the role of Parliament?

It is a rhetorical question for sure, but it has a clear answer: It is to serve Canadians, and that concern is at the heart of the matter being debated tonight. The Liberal-NDP coalition has unilaterally pressed for making hybrid Parliament, a temporary model of Parliament, into a permanent model. Such a dramatic change to a long-held procedure cannot and should not be implemented without clear consensus from all recognized parties within this chamber.

On May 5, the World Health Organization formally declared the COVID-19 pandemic emergency to be over. The governing coalition cannot hide behind a past crisis to avoid accountability and transparency, because ultimately that is a by-product. I hope that is not the intention, but that is a by-product behind this procedural change. Instead of helping Canadians who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table, the government is actively working to avoid facing the Canadian people.

Both accountability and engagement suffer in a hybrid Parliament. We have seen the core constitutional principle of responsible government, which is accountability to Parliament, weaken under the current hybrid system. I do not think anyone is challenging that.

In this session of Parliament alone, House administration decided to cancel dozens of committee meetings due to a lack of resources for virtual participation. That fact alone should give my colleagues across the aisle pause. The importance of committee work cannot be overstated. It is at committee where drafted legislation is reviewed, and at times it is there, after all, that corruption and mismanagement are uncovered.

Here are some examples. It is at the finance committee that the extent of the implications of another deficit budget are examined and highlighted. It is where amendments are tabled, debated and hopefully passed to improve the lives of Canadians, though unfortunately not this year.

At the fisheries and oceans committee, which I attended this morning, the bungling of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' handling of the bilateral Great Lakes Fishery Commission file has united both houses of the U.S. Congress and all four accredited parties of this chamber in calling for a change in how the commission is managed. This failure has caused our American partners to walk away from the board table and risk the $8-billion fishery industry through the return of an invasive species, the sea lamprey, which devastated the Great Lakes in the 1950s and actually led to the original creation of the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.

Earlier this evening, I attended an agriculture and agrifood industry committee where the four parties representative of this chamber reviewed Bill C-280 for my colleague from York—Simcoe, a bill to bring about some protections for fresh vegetable and fruit growers in case of bankruptcy of their buyers.

Committee work is important, then, for advancing legislation and for government accountability, yet through the mechanics of a hybrid Parliament, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have been able to duck and weave their way around facing questions from His Majesty's loyal opposition. This defies a founding tenet of our Westminster parliamentary system, in which the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account. There are technical glitches. The ministers avoid standing in their place in this chamber or at committee, choosing instead to surround themselves with screens in their offices right here on the Hill to avoid accountability when a poor grasp of a file is on full display.

Is this acceptable? As parliamentarians, is it not our duty to serve our constituents to the best of our abilities? How can we do that if the government enshrines opportunities to avoid accountability?

I do not deny that by almost every quantifiable metric, productivity and accountability are higher when we are working in person, but to quote General Patton, “Always do everything you ask of those you command.” This is not what the Minister of Procurement demonstrated as the minister was directing our federal workers back to work in the office. How is it just to deny a provision to federal workers while granting the same privilege to politicians? This is a textbook example of “Do what I say, not what I do.”

Beyond televised acts of accountability, there are innumerable interactions that help our constituents, advance public policy and generally contribute to the building of constructive relationships among colleagues, both within our caucuses and across party lines. Stifling these small but consequential interactions through a hybrid system is simply flawed.

I am sure I do not need to explain the many ways that constituents' problems can be solved with a quick word to a minister while the bells ring for a vote, or the important information that stakeholders draw to our attention when they visit us personally in our offices, or how a casual word with a colleague bumped into in the hallway helps to build the trust needed later to be confident that a future agreement struck at committee will be honoured. This has been mentioned several times this evening. These are just some of the examples of inter-personal dynamics that a hybrid Parliament prevents and discourages.

Again, it must be asked how Canadians are best served by their parliamentarians. Is it through increasing the personal convenience of members of the House or is it instead through encouraging maximum transparency and accountability, part of which is through ensuring that both official languages in Canada are given equal weight?

Conservatives have a long and proud history in building and supporting a bilingual Parliament.

I do not speak French, but I am learning French with Duolingo.

That is as far as I can get right now, which is why it is all the more alarming to hear from the International Association of Conference Interpreters, Canada region, and its president, Linda Ballantyne, who said that a hybrid Parliament has meant that “English has predominated and French has been snuffed out.”

In part, this is due to a skyrocketing injury rate among staff interpreters. We have gone from a single disabling injury before the pandemic to 90 incidents. With a dwindling pool of interpreters, we cannot tolerate the harm done to these crucial women and men in the functioning of our democracy. It is for these reasons that Conservatives put forward a common-sense recommendation to have the House of Commons proceedings return entirely to in-person while maintaining the voting application. Considering that 97% of chamber interventions are now made in person, this recommendation would have led to little change to the nature of House debates, yet such a change would free up a badly needed translation service while also reducing some workplace risks that interpreters have faced.

To reiterate an earlier point, far too many committee meetings have been cut short or outright cancelled due to a lack of resources, particularly the presence of interpreters to ensure our meetings are conducted bilingually. By cancelling the important work done at committees, Canadians are deprived of one avenue of making their voices heard, especially when it comes to holding this government or any government to account.

Regrettably, truncated committee work has formed just one portion of a broader pattern of hybrid proceedings eroding government accountability to Parliament. Finding an effective way of combatting the pandemic and ensuring that parliaments continued to function the world over was a global concern, yet perpetuating the solutions found during the pandemic to the post-pandemic era seems to be a problem unique to the Canadian federal government. According to Andy Williamson, an Inter-Parliamentary Union researcher, some of the digital and remote working practices at foreign legislatures “will have been temporary as they are no longer felt necessary”. Indeed, he advised that just 46% of legislatures will retain remote functionality while “in some cases this might only be for use in exceptional circumstances.” To answer a question heckled across earlier, even within Canada, no provincial or territorial legislature currently has a full-fledged hybrid system.

Succinctly, no other comparable legislature has rushed headlong into a permanent embrace of full-fledged hybrid proceedings or, if it is being entertained, it is with eyes wide open to the potential downsides. Despite the advances of technology and the rise of the Internet, some problems are best solved the old-fashioned way. Sometimes precedent and procedure are in place because they work. It is with a reckless disregard for the health and functioning of Parliament that the governing coalition has pressed for the permanent status of a hybrid system.

I must ask again. What is the role of Parliament? Is it to serve the interests of Canadians or the convenience of its members?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lee, when I asked the people from Quebec earlier, they were unanimous about the fact that growers needed this bill

Is the rest of Canada also unanimous about the need for rapid action? Do all the growers want to see Bill C‑280 passed?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

From your understanding in reading this particular bill, growers and greenhouse growers would be protected under Bill C-280.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you for that.

For my next question, just for the fruit and vegetable growers, I know because of how connected our two economies are, Canada and the United States, that you have a lot of contacts down south and that may also involve members of the government in the United States Department of Agriculture and members of Congress. Is there a guarantee that, if we do embark on this path of getting Bill C-280 passed into law, we will regain preferential status under PACA?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

If I'm interpreting you correctly, that in itself is not a statement that could be adequately used as an argument against Bill C-280. It's great that it exists, but additional protections are needed through Bill C-280.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin]

Essentially, action is needed urgently and we need the financial protection mechanisms in Bill C‑280.

Production costs have been increasing substantially for two or three years now. Transportation costs, including the price of diesel, to ship products to the United States have increased dramatically. The financial risk for the Canadian horticultural sector is greater than ever.

I might also add the fact, which you yourself mentioned earlier, Mr. Perron, that extreme weather conditions can, from one day to the next, cause considerable losses.

It's unrealistic to think, given the current economic context in our sector, that we can continue to have access to the huge U.S. market without some form of protection.

[Patrice Léger Bourgoin, General Manager, Quebec Produce Growers Association]

The bill's implementation would provide priority access to an insolvent client's cash, inventories and accounts to help offset the losses associated with a product that was delivered but not yet paid for. As my colleague Mr. Woods said just now, the introduction of a mechanism that would give Canada some financial protection would open the door to restoring preferential treatment under the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, the PACA, for Canadian companies that sell products to the United States. This preferential treatment was in place prior to 2014, when it was revoked by the United States because there was no reciprocity.

It's essential to protect the supply chain. If one of the links has not received payment, it affects the entire system, right down to the family farm. In such a context, even if the seller is an intermediary, there has to be protection, and growers who sell through a third party depend on a domino arrangement to receive payment.

It's worth mentioning that once the act is enacted, the government would no longer have a direct role to play in the insolvency process and would have no financial responsibility once there is royal assent. So the act wouldn't require the government, and hence taxpayers, to compensate or cover losses incurred by a farmer if a buyer was unable to meet its obligations. Basically, the proposed model in Bill C‑280 reflects the parameters of a tried and true model used in the United States. It's a financially achievable solution that would not place any additional burden on the government.

The adoption of Bill C‑280 would promote a predictable and more stable market for companies through the safety net that would be established.

To conclude, I would like to underscore the fact that the Quebec Produce Growers Association firmly supports Bill C‑280.

Thank you.

[Quinton Woods, Chair, Trade and Marketing Working Group, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada]

Good evening.

As Rebecca said, my name is Quinton Woods. I am Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada's trade and marketing working group chair, and the sales manager of a root vegetable operation at Gwillimdale Farms. Gwillimdale is a premier grower, packer and shipper of root vegetables, located on the northern tip of the Holland Marsh.

Bill C-280 is a topic about which I am highly passionate. I want to point out that this proposed legislation could pave the way for reinstating the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act protection for Canadian growers by the United States. PACA had been a crucial protection for Canadian growers, ensuring prompt payment and offering a dispute resolution mechanism. The loss of this privilege in 2014, because of the lack of reciprocity in Canada, dealt a significant blow to our industry, exposing our growers to increased financial risk.

Gwillimdale’s operation was directly affected in 2014. Coming out of the recession of 2009, a U.S. customer, with whom we had done business with for many years, stopped paying us. We were left with no choice but to launch a formal complaint against this company through the PACA in the United States. Unfortunately, the day on which we filed the formal complaint, the United States pulled reciprocity for Canadian sellers. That meant we were required to post a bond for twice the value of our claim. At that time, our claim was worth $100,000 U.S, and we were required to post a bond for $200,000 U.S. We were not in a position to post the bond at that time and were forced to walk away from our claim. If Canada had implemented a system prior to revocation of reciprocity, we would have been able to continue our formal complaint without posting a bond.

The proposed legislation would be of no cost to the government, as it would not be required to carry financial liability or backstop any losses. However, it will provide significant benefits to growers, and one could argue, it is a form of business risk management, but one that requires no government funding. This legislation offers a framework that bolsters the stability of our industry and promotes fairness in business practices, ensuring the viability and growth of our sector for years to come.

FVGC sees this bill as a game-changer, providing our members with much-needed protections and possibly leading to greater market opportunities. We urge you to consider these benefits as you deliberate on this legislation. Our members depend on it, and the bill will bolster the strength and sustainability of the Canadian produce sector at a time when it is sorely needed.

We cannot forget that the benefits are not restricted to our growers. A more robust and secure Canadian produce industry, backed by these protective measures, would help to address the growing concerns of Canadian food security and food sovereignty.

Thank you for your your time and consideration.

[Dr. Rebecca Lee, Executive Director, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear before you today.

Quinton and I appreciate this opportunity to address you on behalf of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. I am Rebecca Lee, executive director of FVGC. We represent growers across the country involved in the production of over 120 different types of fruit and vegetable commodities over 14,000 farms.

We are here today to express our strong support for Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act. As you all know, the produce sector has been pushing for this for many years. We greatly appreciate the support we've received from the committee members, from all parties, on this initiative. Speaking on behalf of Canadian growers, we strongly urge all parties to see to it that this bill passes swiftly so that it can provide the necessary safeguards to our growers in what is surely a volatile and uncertain time for our industry.

Our sector is quite unique and differs from other commodities in that our products are highly perishable and our window for sales very narrow. This is why the existing protections for agriculture products in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are not adequate. In the event of a purchaser's insolvency or bankruptcy, our growers are left with limited recourse and significant losses.

A key aspect of this legislation is that, once the proceeds from the sale of fresh produce are deemed to be held in trust for the supplier, they are not included in the company's property. This is significant, because it means these assets would be protected, and it does not take away from other creditors' ability to access their claims in the event of a restructuring or insolvency.

This not only provides growers with an additional layer of protection. It is also an instrumental tool in ensuring fairness and equitability in these often complex dealings. Additionally, the definitions included in the legislation consider the realities of our industry. Acknowledging that the fruits and vegetables might be repackaged or transformed, and yet remain the beneficial property of the supplier, is an important detail.

I will now let Quinton Woods, FVGC's trade and marketing working group chair, explain further.

[Keith Currie, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Chairman.

As most of you here know, I am Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. CFA represents about 190,000 farm families and farmers and ranchers right across this country, from coast to coast to coast.

I want to be very clear from the outset that we are absolutely in support of Bill C-280. It's a bill for which I personally have been advocating for many years. I want to make it clear that we are certainly in support of it.

While this bill would provide the much-needed financial support to our fresh fruit and vegetable sector, which supports nearly 250,000 jobs in this country, it is about much more than that. Bill C-280 is about preserving the fibre of local and rural farming communities, maintaining the integrity of our food supply chains and supporting Canada's domestic food security.

As a farmer myself, I understand that risk management is a big part of what we do. From the moment that seed goes in the ground or that calf is born, there is a risk that I won't see a crop at the end of the day or see that calf mature into a milker or head to market. However, unlike cash crop, livestock or supply-managed producers in Canada, fresh fruit and vegetable producers carry additional risks and costs that are unique to the production of perishable goods.

These producers typically don't see a return on their investment until the product is sold and payment is collected, long after the farmer has passed on their product. What happens when those suppliers go bankrupt and can't pay the farmer, or simply walk away because they can't turn a profit? The farmer doesn't get paid, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not provide effective protection for fresh produce sellers in Canada due to the high perishability of these products and the industry's longer payment terms. You simply cannot repossess spoiled fruit or recover your losses, as we've heard at length tonight.

The government has put forward solutions for other sectors within agriculture. For example, the Canadian Grain Commission holds roughly $1 billion of financial security from individual grain licence-holders to pay grain sellers in case a grain buyer becomes insolvent. However, no such financial security exists for the thousands of small and medium-sized fresh fruit and vegetable producers right across this country.

Bill C-280 would establish a critical financial protection mechanism for fresh produce sellers in Canada to help secure payment in the case of a buyer declaring bankruptcy. It's a tailored solution to a clear gap in our risk management tool kit for Canadian producers.

We must remember that these farmers play a vital role in supporting and supplying local communities with safe and nutritious food and vegetable products. In a context of escalating food prices, increased costs of production and supply chain dynamics that are threatening Canada's food security, can we really afford to leave these producers exposed any longer?

Our members across the country are strong supporters of Bill C-280 and look forward to this bill being passed as quickly as possible.

Thanks for this opportunity. I look forward to questions.

[Fred Webber, Past President and Chief Executive Officer, Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak with you regarding Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act.

As you indicated, I retired as the president and CEO of the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation in 2021, having been part of the DRC since its origins and inception nearly a quarter of a century ago. The DRC is currently embedded in the Safe Food for Canadians Act and is a requirement for most firms that purchase and sell fresh fruits and vegetables. I continue to consult with the DRC as needed, and I am available to DRC members as an arbitrator.

Prior to moving to Canada in 2005 and becoming a dual Canada-U.S. citizen, I was at the United States Department of Agriculture, specifically with the PACA, or Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, branch. My entire professional career has been spent resolving payment issues in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector.

My specific involvement with financial protection for Canadian farmers in relation to insolvent buyers began in the late 1990s as the DRC was being formed. The DRC founders set out to establish a mandatory dispute resolution system, a dedicated inspection service and an insolvency tool such as the one we are discussing today. Today, only the insolvency tool remains outstanding. When a firm ceases to operate, owes money and becomes insolvent, the DRC has no way to help recover any dollars owed. This legislation would provide our farmers with an opportunity to recover at least a portion of their livelihoods.

Frustrating our farmers further is this: Canada and the U.S. had specific programs available to each other for the resolution of fruit and vegetable trade disputes. Canadian farmer rights in the U.S. have been restricted, as the Canadian system does not offer comparable assistance to U.S. farmers. For many, this development has closed opportunities to expand and prosper.

Why has this important risk mitigation tool continued to stall? I believe it is due to misunderstandings and unfamiliarity with the sector. I will offer a few examples as an explanation as to why I believe this tool has been studied for so long.

In the beginning, a study was put forth indicating that the U.S. model of a deemed trust used taxpayer money to pay farmers whose customers became insolvent. It is now well established that no taxpayer money is involved in the U.S. PACA model and that this research was in error.

There was also—as was mentioned previously by Mr. Davidson—a significant misunderstanding with regard to the Canadian and U.S. constitutions. The Canadian farmers were familiar with the PACA model and wanted to follow it closely as a basis for the Canadian model. We now understand that, unlike the U.S. model, familiar or similar legislation in Canada cannot come into play until an insolvency occurs and federal jurisdiction has taken over. That is not a problem for the industry.

It has often been stated that protections for farmers already exist in the Canadian bankruptcy regime. I believe it has now been well established that those provisions simply do not work for produce, given perishability, supply chain, processing and other identity issues.

Another reality we have faced is the lack of viable information. I can verify that StatsCan and the superintendent of bankruptcy have valiantly tried to help. It is unfortunate that their systems lack the granularity to provide the specific insolvency information on fresh fruits and vegetables. Reorganizations and receiverships further complicate the compiling of meaningful data. Extracting unreported business failures has also been unsuccessful.

In my experience, the most compelling reason for this legislation is the number of firms that simply close their doors and walk away from their businesses. This is a regular occurrence. In a typical scenario, there will be several farmers owed money. They do not know who else is owed money, nor do they know whether another creditor has taken the assets. Without this information, they are not able to spend the significant dollars to investigate and place the firm into an insolvency position. With this legislation, a farmer would have some assurance of being treated fairly.

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Similarly, as was pointed out earlier, small and medium-sized growers are often at the mercy of distributors, retailers, or whatever they might be called, which are more aggressive towards our growers.

Is Bill C‑280 really an important step forward? Could some improvements be made to ensure that it is?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you for your answer, Mr. Davidson.

You mentioned at the outset that farming was important and that it should be given more specific attention. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑280.

Do you think this bill will have an impact on small and medium-sized growers? The trend has often led to preferential treatment for the very big producers. Will this bill have a positive impact on small and medium-sized growers? Will it at least encourage some of them to start up again?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, many fruit and vegetable growers in every province have shifted to grain or other field crops. Do you think this bill could have a positive impact on a possible return to fruit and vegetable crops and enable smaller farms to successfully enter this market?