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.

U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Products

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague opposite talk about Bill C-280, but I wonder if he could also talk about Bill C-282, which, I would remind members, seeks to protect supply management.

We are currently negotiating with the government, and there are some things we absolutely must not compromise on, including the well-being of Quebec farmers. I would like my esteemed colleague to tell me whether his government and his Prime Minister will force the senators' hand and respect the will of the elected members of the House.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a great member of Parliament and a good friend to the Canada-U.S. relationship.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the fact that it there was an election tonight in Nova Scotia. Tim Houston, who was the premier going into the election, was re-elected with a majority mandate. I would like to congratulate him on his successful election. I would also like to congratulate Zach Churchill, the leader of the Liberal Party, as well as Claudia Chender and all the candidates who put their names forward in Nova Scotia. I think we, as elected members of Parliament, can certainly respect and understand the importance of people putting their names forward for democracy. I look forward to working with all the newly elected and re-elected members of the legislative assembly in Nova Scotia, in Kings—Hants and across Nova Scotia.

This is a crucial debate. Obviously, I think that any concept of tariffs on the most integrated economies in the world is problematic. The proposal would not only hurt the Canadian economy, it would hurt the American economy and consumers on both sides of the border.

We do not have a whole lot to work with as parliamentarians, as has been reported and has been put out by the president-elect on his social media channels. He has alluded to the fact that, in his first day of office, once assuming it on January 20, 2025, he would put a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports into the United States. It is worth noting that the Canada-U.S. relationship is one of the most unique in the world. We share the longest undefended border, and we have nearly 3 billion dollars' worth of products and services being traded between our two countries on any given day. That represents nearly a trillion dollars of trade. There is no country in the world that matches that reality.

I saw the president-elect's remarks. We, I think, as Canadian parliamentarians, want to work with the incoming administration. The Republican Party and President-elect Trump were elected in the United States. At the same time, we need to be able to find a pathway to work with that new administration and understand how we can get to an outcome that is going to be satisfactory for citizens on both sides of the border because it should be in the vested interests of any parliamentarian or any member of congress to get that outcome. We serve the people. We serve our citizens here in Canada, and this is extremely important.

The debate tonight is a debate about presumably the impact of what these tariffs would represent, as well as how the Government of Canada responds, but I would argue how members of Parliament in the House should respond because the government has a responsibility, but so too do we. Every elected member of a Canadian constituency has a responsibility to represent Canada's interests and, of course, be the voice for our people here in Parliament.

I want to break my remarks down tonight into a few different categories. I want to start by talking about the economic relationship, but I also want to talk about defence and national security. I want to talk about a North American continental approach. I also want to talk about a team Canada approach and how we should go about this relationship over the next couple of months. However, I will start with the economy.

I believe that, for 32 out of the 50 states in the United States, their most important trading partner is Canada, which would be 64% of the United States. We have a deep economic relationship. In fact, in Canada, 75% of our exports, whether in goods or in services, go to the United States. We as a government, and many previous federal governments, look at diversifying trade as a good thing. Of course, we want to partner around the world, but we cannot get around the facts that we have one of the most advanced economies in the world right on the our doorstep and that our relationships are integral and connected.

With talk of a 25% tariff on Canadian products, while I am not suggesting that the government should do this right away, if there was no movement on this issue between now and January 20, 2025, any reasonable government in the country would have to respond at some point to protect our national interests. That would just lead to impacts on both sides of the border about business interests and the impact on communities.

We have been here before. This government has managed a rocky Canada-U.S. relationship. Throughout our history, since Confederation and the Declaration of Independence, there have always been times throughout the relationship where relations can be strained, but we know that even in those times, the Canada-U.S. relationship must prevail because of the shared interests and values we have between our two countries, the protection of freedom, democracy and liberty and the promotion of western liberal democracy across the world. It will be incumbent on all members of Parliament in this place to engage with their congressional colleagues on Capitol Hill to remind them about the importance of the economic relationship, a two-way relationship that benefits Canada and the United States equally.

I want to talk a bit about the resources that Canada has that can benefit the United States. We wake up every morning thinking about the United States and their importance in a continental relationship. The United States is one of the largest countries in the world and, arguably, the most powerful country in the world. The U.S. may not think about Canada in the same way that we think about it every morning. I think of the importance of critical minerals, not only on the reduction of emissions and in the context of climate change but also in the context of defence and security. We possess the critical minerals the United States needs. The other critical mineral superpower in the world is China. We know from the relationship and the way in which both Democratic nominee for president, Kamala Harris, and President-elect Donald Trump have approached this that there is a concern around China's influence in the world.

Canada has the critical minerals that the United States needs. We have seen investments by the Department of National Defence in Canada's north in partnership with Canadian companies alongside our government to make sure we build a supply chain that will work in a North American context. A 25% tariff, at the heart, goes directly against this type of thinking and would not be helpful to the American interests across the United States.

When we talk about energy, Canada is an energy superpower. We should be deeply proud of that, whether it be our oil and gas sector, renewables or other forms of energy. Nuclear energy is also a key opportunity to partner in deeper integration with the United States. The United States needs our energy market. I had the opportunity at the Halifax International Security Forum to have a conversation with a representative from Amazon. Amazon is looking at artificial intelligence and deep data centres as a way to help drive its business, as well as innovations that are going to be needed around the world, but it needs renewable energy to do that.

Canadians listening at home tonight would be proud to know that Canada is one of the best grids in the world from an electricity perspective. Nearly 86% of our electricity that is generated is emissions-free. It leads the world. It is a tremendous opportunity and competitive advantage. As American companies look to expand their footprint in the digital space, whether it be in Quebec, British Columbia or across this country, we are well positioned to capitalize upon that, but 25% tariffs do not help in that.

In the integrated market, on any given day, whether it is a company in Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia, Etobicoke—Lakeshore or Surrey, British Columbia, we have companies that do business across borders and vice versa. There are great American companies that provide products and services that we need in this country, so we cannot look at this from an and/or perspective.

I listened to questions in question period today and heard the Conservatives using the words “Canada first”. Any member of Parliament in this place wants to place Canadian national interests at the top of what we advocate for every day, but that type of thinking plays into an isolationist type of view that I do not think is beneficial when we are talking about the Canada-U.S. relationship. We have to be talking about partnership. Every time the Conservatives stand in this place and talk about Canada first, we should be talking about North American advantage and how Canada can co-operate. That puts Canadian interests at the heart of what we are doing alongside the Americans in a global context. I want to talk about that in an economic sense, but we need to talk about defence and national security.

I submit that the world is probably the most dangerous it has been in the last 100 years. We have war in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, provoked by Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. We have war in the Middle East, and I was pleased to see a ceasefire today between Israel and Hezbollah. That is important news, but again, there remains instability in that region, and we have a rise of authoritarian governments around the world.

Again, I bring members back to my experience at the Halifax International Security Forum. One of the panels this weekend in Halifax was on the CRINKs, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and their involvement in the world. They are not out to protect and promote democratic values. They are out to do the opposite, and Canada has an interesting role to play in the world here. We have to promote the ability for western liberal democracies to succeed in this challenge that we are facing, which is, again, the most dangerous world we have seen in 100 years.

That bears upon a responsibility for Canada and the United States to take a leadership role in the world, and the way we do that is by working together. It is not by putting up walls or tariff barriers between us. It is by looking at ways that we can further integrate our economies and ways that we can co-operate in the interests of national security.

I think it took a bit too long, but I fully support the fact that the government has committed to a 2% target on NATO. It is going to require billions of dollars between now and 2032 to scale up to that amount. The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and I were in Washington in July as part of the NATO conference, and we had these conversations alongside congressional leaders in the House and in the Senate about the ways Canada can be a key partner in NATO.

Madam Speaker, do you know what is concerning? I heard the shadow critic for defence today stand up in the House. It was the first time I had seen in a long time that the leader of the official opposition allowed him to speak in this place, and he asked questions on defence. The Conservatives love to beat their chests on the defence question. They had defence spending under 1% when they left office in 2015, and they have not yet committed to the 2% target, so my question to my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House is when they will formally commit to the 2% and help work and push this government to do more on defence spending, because not only is it a moral imperative in the world that we are facing right now, but it is going to be an extremely important element in terms of that relationship with the United States.

When we talk to Republican congressional leaders, they will be engaging with the president-elect about the importance of U.S. influence in foreign policy, but they will be saying NATO countries have to step up and deliver sooner on their commitments. The government is starting on that path. The opposition should be joining us and saying they fully commit to 2%, but I do not hear a lick out of them in relation to foreign policy. They do not talk about it. They do not talk about their view in the world, and I think it is probably incumbent on them, if they think they are the government-in-waiting, to start talking about how they view the world and Canada's role in the world, particularly as it relates to defence.

I just want to take an opportunity to talk about the team Canada approach. This is extremely important. We saw the premiers write to the Prime Minister and talk about the importance of bringing the premiers of the provinces and territories together. We have to be united in a team Canada approach. I know we can have partisan debates in here. I just took a bit of a shot at the Conservatives on the opposite side, but I did so in good faith, hoping and knowing that at the end of the day, Canada's interests should come ahead of any partisan interests in this place.

We are in a critical moment, and I think it is incumbent on the government, to the extent that it can find goodwill across this House, to build consensus and to go to Washington and make sure we are advocating for Canada's interests as a united team Canada, alongside the premiers. I think that should include the provinces. We have seen Premier Ford, and we have seen Premier Wab Kinew and Premier Danielle Smith talk about their desire to get to Washington and to Capitol Hill. That is important.

Canada is a big federation. We have regional interests that may differ, or there may be particular strategic assets, depending on whether someone is in the Atlantic or if they are in British Columbia, the west, Ontario or Quebec, that may differ in terms of how they want to engage in this relationship, but we have to do it in an aligned approach. I think that is incumbent on all members of Parliament.

We should be thinking about our work and our ability to travel to Capitol Hill and engage constructively with our American colleagues in Congress about the ways we can work together. We need to build those relationships. It is muscle memory. We need to be able to spend time on Capitol Hill. Some of us do this very well. There may be others who have never actually taken the opportunity to go to Washington. It is important that we do that and that we invite our American colleagues to come to Ottawa, so we can reinforce the partnership that we have together.

The last item is regarding industry and key stakeholders. This is going to be important. The cross-border business relationship needs to be reinforced, and we have to find symmetry regarding ways that we can create wins for industry in both the United States and Canada. I believe there is a window and a great opportunity to do more of that, and we should view this relationship not as a contentious one or one that is a threat to Canada. I know a 25% opening conversation on tariffs is problematic, but we should view this as an opportunity in terms of how we can further deepen the relationship and build wins on both sides of the border.

It would be irresponsible of me not to talk about the agriculture question. I chair the House of Commons agriculture committee, and I want to talk a little about some of the cross-border wins that I just alluded to. We need to be identifying harmonization of policies that are wins for our Canadian agriculture sector and the U.S. sector as well. I want to give one example, which is Bill C-280; I think it is by the member for Simcoe North. It is in the House. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has amended the bill, notwithstanding that it was agreed to with 323 votes to 1 in this place. It will be coming back to the House, and I would ask the House to reject that amendment. Furthermore, if the bill is going to be delayed, it is absolutely responsible for the government to take the contents of the bill and put it in some type of economic legislation. We are mired in a question of privilege, and things are blocked here in the House. However, there are important pieces of legislation that we have to get through for the Canada-U.S. relationship and for Canadians; Bill C-280 would be one of those.

I think about opportunities around the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the EPA and ways that they can share information to be able to drive questions around crop management and crop protection products and approvals. That is an easy win that I presume a Republican administration would see as straightforward policy that we could also sell on our side of the border.

I think about the ability to align on the standardization around standards and what products are actually marketed under. That is something we could align in a North American context.

Around wilderness protection, people in the United States, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, are big on protecting nature and natural lands. We can also find bipartisan or multipartisan consensus here in Canada around protecting natural landscapes. Those are things that we could do together in alignment in an international context.

I want to talk about Nova Scotia quickly. We are fortunate to be exempted from the forestry tariffs that have been discussed in the House. As an entire Parliament, we need to continue to lean in on that question. The forestry sector matters to this country, and we should be there.

The president-elect mentioned two things in his post yesterday: fentanyl and the border. I would hazard a guess that any member of Parliament in this place wants to tackle the question of fentanyl and the impact of drug abuse in this country. We are all standing there, and the government can do more.

Certainly with respect to the border and any immigration mechanisms, we can make sure we give confidence to the incoming administration that by no means should there be a 25% tariff on our products. It would hurt American industry, and we can work with the incoming administration to make sure that we have partnership.

I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Foothills for his speech. The House has been seized with this issue for almost a month now, and it could end tonight if the Liberals would just produce the documents. What is concerning is the pressing issues that we are not dealing with. For example, my colleague from Foothills knows that the carbon tax issue for my riding of York—Simcoe is that we are not eligible for the rural top-up. We know the government loves to divide and it is dividing Canadians with the carbon tax based on geography. We are also not dealing with Liberal-appointed senators who are interfering with my bill, C-280, financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable growers right across Canada. I know the member for Winnipeg North knows how important this bill is.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things we know. We have been seized with this issue, as my colleague knows, for a month now, and the Liberals could end this by submitting the documents, unredacted. They could end it right now, tonight.

I have important issues in my riding, like the rural top-up that residents have been denied in York—Simcoe even though we are rural, like the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund and like Liberal-appointed senators interfering in my bill, Bill C-280, over in the Senate. We know that side of the House is now with bankers, and on this side of the House, we are with farmers.

I wonder if my colleague could point to a few pressing issues in his riding that we are not getting to because the Liberals are not producing these documents.

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

I thank Mr. Barlow for his comments. However, I don't interpret the paragraph in question in the same way at all. It explains that there have been concessions in the negotiation of the last three trade agreements. It doesn't say that we shouldn't trade and that trade isn't good for Canada—quite the opposite. All it says is that these concessions weaken one of the three pillars of supply management—import controls—and destabilize the system, which will eventually cease to function. If we took that away, we'd take away the argument that tells senators why they should pass this bill. I ask you to keep it. We can hold the vote, if you wish.

When we agreed to send a letter to the Senate about Bill C‑280, which I also think is very important, by the way, we added Bill C‑282 to it, and there was a consensus. So I think we could come to a consensus. If not, let's move on to the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're at time, Mr. MacGregor.

Thank you, Mr. Currie.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our round of questioning. Obviously, we're a little bit delayed, but I'm going to address the point that Mr. Perron raised.

I think it would be appropriate to release our witnesses.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I'd like to thank all the witnesses not only for their testimony, but also for the work they do to support agriculture across Canada.

Colleagues, very quickly, I wasn't in the chair last week, but I understand that on the advice of all parties on this committee, there were two letters drafted. One was on Bill C-280, which I have moved with your expediency. It is now going off to the Senate. On the advice of my vice-chair, as he and I discussed, all senators are going to be tagged on that, not just the Senate committee that is dealing with Bill C-280.

On Bill C-282, obviously, I did receive a bit more correspondence. I have the draft here. I just need some guidance because, ultimately, the letter in my name is a reflection of where this committee is at. You have all had the chance to review this letter. Are we good with sending this off to the Senate?

I see your hand, Mr. Barlow.

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

Thank you. You really are wonderful witnesses, you respect my speaking time.

Mr. Chair, I see myself obliged to use some of my speaking time to ask you a question.

Earlier, you mentioned the letter about Bill C‑280. At the same time, we had adopted the possibility of sending a letter about Bill C‑282, which I'd like to send.

Should we now hold the required discussion on this? Can we instead set aside time to do so at the end of the meeting out of respect for our witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Go very quickly, because we are at time.

I don't know if that made it through, Mr. Epp.

I will acknowledge this for our friends from Quebec and the CFA: This committee shares the concern about the importance of passing Bill C-280. We've written a letter to the Senate saying, “Get on with it”, especially with a vote of 320 to 1 in the House. It has clear and uniform support in the democratically elected House of Commons. We share that concern.

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

We'll now turn to Ms. Taylor Roy.

You have six minutes.

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

I want to give a second to our friends from Quebec.

Do you have a comment on Bill C-280, as well?

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

Thank you.

I will switch gears and go to Bill C-280.

I'm going to invite comment from the CFA and our friends from Quebec, the fruit and vegetable growers.

Do you know the position of the Canadian Bankers Association with respect to Bill C-280? Have you seen or heard anything, or have you met with them? Are they supportive of Bill C-280? Are they opposed to Bill C-280? Have you seen a public statement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The other piece was mentioned by Mr. Bergamini in relation to Bill C-280.

I understand, Mr. Barlow, that when you were in the chair last week, this came up around the letters. With your approval, I'm going to send the letter on Bill C-280 right away. I think we need to have a more in-depth conversation on some of the correspondence I've received. We'll do that another time, but the letter on Bill C-280 is going out the door today, unless I see any strong opposition.

Seeing none, let's turn it over to questions. There will probably be only one round, colleagues.

Mr. Barlow, you have six minutes.

[Massimo Bergamini, Executive Director, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Massimo Bergamini. I'm the executive director of Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada.

Our organization represents growers across the country, and our members are involved in the production of over 120 different types of crops in more than 14,000 farm operations.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the major challenges facing our sector with you.

Having been in this role for fewer than six weeks, I may not yet have a detailed sense of every issue or policy framework affecting our sector, but six weeks in, I do have a sense of what keeps our members up at night. Climate change and extreme weather, chronic labour shortages, the threat of growing protectionism and a widening competitive divide immediately come to mind.

Last August, our organization provided two comprehensive briefs to the government in the context of its pre-budget consultations. Copies, in both official languages, have been provided to the clerk of the committee as a complement to this presentation. These two submissions, which include a sector-specific look at Canada's greenhouse industry and the challenges it faces, contain some 42 specific recommendations covering everything from business risk management to crop protection, energy and climate change, labour and trade. I will not repeat them here.

What I will do, however, is take a moment to focus on this committee's important report, “Improving the Resilience of Canada's Horticultural Sector”.

Would I say your report addresses every issue and every concern? Probably not. What it does do, however, is provide a realistic policy road map to sustainability for Canada's diverse horticultural sector. This is why we view your report's recommendations as nothing less than the necessary starting point for any effort to improve the resiliency of Canada's horticultural sector.

Let's look at some of the top-line examples. First, your report correctly identifies problems with the current suite of business risk management programs and recommends an urgent review before they expire in four years. Second, it proposes simple and pragmatic measures to address the most glaring issues with Canada's temporary foreign worker program. Third, it recognizes the unique risk profile and competitive imbalance faced by Canadian horticultural producers, notably by recommending the adoption of Bill C-280, which would finally mainstream bankruptcy protection for our sector.

If your work, collectively in this committee and individually as champions within your respective caucuses, resulted in real movement on just those three policy areas, it would go a long way toward bolstering our sector and improving food security for all Canadians. I say this because, too often, the good and important work done in committees of the House and the Senate remains a dead letter. We want your report to inspire and inform urgent government action, and we will work with you to ensure that a light continues to shine on it.

Having said that, I do want to leave you with an additional thought. While some may dismiss this as being too technical, too processy or too inside baseball, we believe it must be given serious consideration. I'm talking here about adopting a food lens for all policy development in Canada.

As you know, from gender-based analysis to equity and climate change, the Government of Canada is no stranger to the development of public policy through dedicated policy prisms. While each of these lenses speaks to important policy considerations, few things are more fundamental to the well-being of individuals, of families, of communities and of nations than food security.

Applying a food lens to policy development would mean having the Government of Canada elevate food security to a national priority. In its simplest form, as we see it, it would mean recognizing that all key policy initiatives should answer a very straightforward question: Will this policy enhance or reduce the quantity, quality and diversity of domestic food production? We believe adopting a food lens to policy development, if done in a transparent manner and with clear accountabilities, would change everything.

Thank you.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to quickly answer that they need to hand over the documents and let us get the $400 million back. That is for sure.

I want to thank the member for his support for my bill, Bill C-280. This is what is so concerning about the government. We had every member of Parliament in the House, except for one, vote for Bill C-280. I know how important the bill is to the member for Winnipeg North's riding. To see the government now ask senators to actually squash the bill over in the Senate is extremely concerning. If that is its plan, I can tell members right now that, seeing what is happening over in the Senate, I now know that that side of the House is with the big banks, but on this side of the House, we are with farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member for York—Simcoe mentioned his bill, Bill C-280. It is a great piece of legislation. If any senators are listening to the House proceedings today, I would like to add my voice in urging them to pass that important bill because it would be very important for the Canadian Produce Marketing Association.

On the issue at hand, let me be very clear that I absolutely am in support of Parliament's right to obtain documents. That is a very clear rule that is solidly laid out in the Constitution. At the same time, we are being presented with an impasse right now. Every hour of House of Commons proceedings costs tens of thousands of dollars, and there are many bills that are not being looked at at this time. I think Canadians, at some point, are going to be looking at the House and wondering what the heck we are doing here.

The RCMP has raised some concerns, and we cannot ignore those. Would it not make sense for the Conservatives to stop putting up speaker after speaker so we could arrive at a decision to send this to the procedure and House affairs committee? Maybe then the Conservative members on that committee would have the opportunity to question the RCMP as a witness and we could come to some kind of an arrangement. Maybe the RCMP could explain what the procedure is and what kind of an investigation it is going through. I am just trying to throw out some ideas to get through the impasse here.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this privilege motion regarding the failure of the government to produce documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. I look forward to offering my insights and to speak up for and on behalf of the hard-working people of York—Simcoe. This is their House, just as it is the House of all Canadians. It is not the Liberal government’s House, no matter how much it wishes that were true.

Peace, order and good government are the defining principles of our nation and have been since Confederation. For 157 years, these principles have underpinned the very promise of Canada, a promise that if people work hard, they can have a great life in a safe community. However, after nine years of the Prime Minister, that promise is broken because the Liberal government has disregarded these fundamental principles and its obligations to Canadians.

There is no peace as Canadians suffer from skyrocketing crime and chaos in every community across the country because of the Liberals’ insane catch-and-release policies, policies that are putting dangerous repeat violent offenders, as well as hard drugs, back onto our streets.

There is no order as Canadians suffer from the economic vandalism the government has wrought on this country, as our people face rising costs, fewer jobs and smaller paycheques. At the same time, more taxpayer dollars are now being spent on servicing Liberal debt than on meaningful health care and infrastructure investments.

There is no good government, as the Liberals have shown time and time again that they are not concerned about what is best for our citizens. They are only preoccupied with improving their own political fortunes and lining the pockets of their friends.

A case in point is the matter before us now, a matter that has seized Parliament for weeks. The Liberal government has failed to turn over documents to the RCMP regarding a $400-million scandal that saw Liberal-appointed executives funnel money to their own companies, implicating them in 186 conflicts of interest. The Auditor General issued a damning report on this matter. She called out the former Sustainable Development Technology Canada agency for “significant lapses” in its oversight and management of taxpayer dollars. Once again, we are seeing the Liberals disrespect taxpayers to benefit other Liberals. The Liberals are blocking the legally ordered production of documents and dismissing the supremacy, will and authority of Parliament.

The government was given a choice, but instead of being accountable, respecting the work of Parliament and respecting the interests of Canadians, the Liberals have chosen to cover up the evidence involved in this scandal. The greed, corruption and conflicts of interest by Liberal appointees in this scandal are absolutely staggering, as are the lengths the Liberal government will go to cover it up.

This is truly shameful, but it is not a surprise. After all, we have seen this many times before. There was the Aga Khan scandal, the cash for access affair, the SNC-Lavalin affair, the WE Charity controversy, clam scam, ArriveCAN and now the green slush fund.

Time and time again, the Liberals have been found guilty for unacceptable ethical failings that have led to the inappropriate waste of significant amounts of public funds. Where does the blame lie for these failings? Certainly, every single Liberal across the way needs to take a good long look at themselves and what their “sunny ways” government has become.

As I think all members in the House know, I like to spend my time on Lake Simcoe in an ice hut, and I can tell them, from plenty of experience in being out there, that a fish rots from the head down. In this case, the head is the head of the government, the Liberal Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for his office, his staff, his ministers, his departments and the direction and policies of his government. It is the Prime Minister who has had to apologize on multiple occasions for breaking the law and for ethical violations. Members will remember when he said “it sucks” when he got caught, but his government does it time and time again. In doing so, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have made a mockery of our conflict of interest laws by repeatedly flaunting them, with no consequences. By refusing to respect the will of the House and turn over documents related to the green slush fund, the Liberals are only further compromising the trust that Canadians have in our institutions and the entrenched processes we have here.

It is no wonder the Prime Minister's record-low popularity has coincided with a historic distrust in our institutions among Canadians. According to a Leger poll released yesterday, the record-low trust in our institutions tracks with similar reports from the Edelman Trust Barometer, which has tracked low and declining trust in government for some time.

It is no wonder Canadians have such little faith in government and other institutions. Canadians are hurting, and they are disillusioned with the state of our country, a country where a healthy meal, a decent home, a safe community and a good quality of life are now out of reach for so many. When we see the lengths this government will go to entrench its Liberal insiders and friends and cover up wasteful spending, all while families can barely afford to make ends meet, they are absolutely incensed.

This reminds me of my by-election in February 2019. The Prime Minister and his Liberal strategists thought they could flip York—Simcoe, and he made two well-publicized appearances at a chicken restaurant in Keswick. However, at that time, folks in York—Simcoe were very upset with the Prime Minister for his direct involvement in pressuring Jody Wilson-Raybould in the ongoing SNC-Lavalin affair. I had heard that at just about every door.

I remember a little story from after my win. When I was being sworn in, it was the first time I had ever met the Prime Minister. I was outside these very doors here and was very excited to represent the people of York—Simcoe. My colleague from Abbotsford was excited. My colleague from Huron—Bruce was excited and high-fiving me. When I was standing outside the doors, our leader at the time, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, was there. He said I would probably meet the Prime Minister and could shake his hand or not. I remember the leader of the NDP pacing back and forth; he wanted to go first, and I said I was just happy to be there.

Lo and behold, there came the Prime Minister, who walked up to me and said, “Scot, you have a lot of good people in York—Simcoe.” I said, “Mr. Prime Minister, we have some beauties.” He then said, “I was at a chicken restaurant twice in your riding”, and I said, “Mr. Prime Minister, I was trying to get you back a third time.” He asked why that was, and I said, “Because every time you came, I got 500 lawn sign requests.” Then he looked at me and I said, “Just kidding, Mr. Prime Minister.” Anyway, we had a laugh. However, all joking aside, five years on, the sentiment we felt in York—Simcoe then has now spilled out and is shared by folks on every street and town from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians want accountability. They want transparency. They want their government to act in the interest of Canadians. I truly believe that, right now, they are disappointed in the Liberals' conduct, their involvement in the green slush fund and other scandals, and their blatant efforts to cover it up.

The unpopularity of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party as a whole can be traced right back to their contempt for Parliament and disinterest in the needs of Canadians, as well as the lengths they will go to look after their own and cover it all up. The green slush fund epitomizes all these things. The claim by the Liberals that the order to provide relevant documents to the RCMP would somehow compromise the investigation is absolutely bogus. If someone came to a police officer with information related to a crime, the police would not turn away and say, “No thanks, we are going to have to come about that on our own.”

RCMP officials, once in possession of the full, unredacted, unabridged documentation with regard to this matter, can assess for themselves its admissibility and relevance to their investigation. They can do this just as they have done with documents already received as part of this order.

Surprise, this is Parliament doing its job. This is our national police force doing its job. Unfortunately, wedged in the middle, we have the corrupt Liberal government intent on covering the whole thing up. The degree to which members opposite have sought to gaslight and mislead Canadians on the green slush fund is disheartening, to say the least.

The Liberal government has attempted to invoke the charter when defending its indefensible position not to produce these documents. That is a joke. The Liberals were actually found in violation of the charter when they invoked the Emergencies Act in the winter of 2022. They were positively gleeful when trampling over the rights of Canadians back then, and now they want to suggest that enabling the RCMP to do its job through the production of documents somehow encroaches on the rights of individual citizens.

I spoke earlier about a fish rotting from the head down. This is one of the biggest fish stories I have ever heard, if I ever heard one. Speaking of fish stories, by the way, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, whose department was responsible for the scandal-ridden Sustainable Development Technology Canada, claimed to Conservatives that they just need to move on from the scandal. He called it a political drama that was putting the clean tech sector at a disadvantage.

We know who wants to move on. The green slush fund happened right under his nose, and they have been found out for their role in this very concerning matter. The fact that legitimate businesses involved in reducing environmental impacts are being affected by this shows the real consequences of Liberal corruption and mismanagement in this country, never mind the amount of taxpayer money that has just been misspent and wasted by the Liberals. This has had a catastrophic impact on the environment far beyond just this one industry.

I will remind members here tonight that the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund was cancelled by the Liberals in 2017, and they promised to bring it back. The Deputy Prime Minister stood on the shores of Lake Simcoe for this big announcement in 2019 and committed and promised $40 million. We all know it never happened. We all know the same old line: promises, promises, promises.

Instead, I have had to spend the last five years telling people involved in the grassroots efforts to clean up and restore the lake the sad truth. The Liberal government will not support their efforts like the previous Conservative government did, because the government would rather ensure the money only flows to its Liberal friends. That has not stopped the grassroots community members from continuing the work as best they can for the lake.

I am also proud of the residents of York—Simcoe who have planted over 1,000 trees, which I have given out over the past five years at my Canada Day barbecue celebrations. The ordinary people of York—Simcoe are truly extraordinary. What a contrast to Liberal insiders who have been making good money through the grifting and self-dealing enabling by the government.

All of this shows just how much contempt the Liberals have for Parliament and the role of the House of Commons in our democracy. The Liberals think the House, the people's House, is an inconvenience to be bypassed and ignored. They do this all the time. Ministers frequently refuse to appear before committees. When they do, questions are deflected to bureaucrats instead of the minister responsible.

The Liberals tried to give themselves unlimited spending and taxation powers during the pandemic. They took the Speaker to court over the release of the Winnipeg lab documents. They routinely use their appointed flunkies in the Senate as a workaround to defeat and gut bills duly passed in this place, such as my current bill, Bill C-280, a financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable growers from coast to coast to coast.

There is an overall disregard for our institutions. The reluctance on the part of the government to produce documents related to the green slush fund is very concerning to say the least, especially since Parliament and its officers are examining multiple other scandals and ethics violations in addition to this one. There is an ongoing affair with the employment minister's continued involvement with a company dealing with government grants and contracts, which is a violation. We all know about the arrive scam app, an absolutely insane boondoggle.

What excuse will the Liberals conjure up to try and get out of being accountable on these matters? They voted against allowing the Auditor General to investigate GC Strategies. They refused to provide the documents on this occasion. What lengths will they go to, to cover up these scandals when Parliament tries to shine a light on them? Canadians see this and the determination by the Liberals to block investigations into corruption within the government.

As the official opposition, Conservatives have been focused on improving the lives of Canadians. However, by paralyzing Parliament, the government has made it impossible for anyone here to address issues like the doubling of housing costs, Liberal food inflation, and crime and chaos. I have been prevented from speaking on local issues as well, such as the illegitimate Georgina aerodrome, the unfair rural carbon tax rebate, the no-show Lake Simcoe clean-up fund and many more.

People in York—Simcoe are truly on the outside looking in. I am calling on the Liberals to finally submit the documents as ordered. If they have nothing to hide, they should give the files to the RCMP. If there was no criminality or wrongdoing, they should just allow justice to take its course and hold those individuals responsible. Enough is enough.