Debates of Oct. 19th, 2023

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I call “Winnipeg-Northsplaining”.

When the Liberals introduced legislation for child care transfers, they asked us if we had read the bill. They told us there was money to fund child care so women could enter the labour market. They asked us if we had read it. They told us they had targets and funding. We told them it had already been done in Quebec. In fact, they were the ones who had not read Quebec's legislation.

Basically, the parliamentary secretary is telling us that he knows it is worthwhile because it already exists in Quebec and it works. The federal government still has this obsession with duplicating everything. Apparently, this government is allergic to efficiency.

When these councils were created in Quebec, I was not yet old enough to vote. Now, I am starting to think about retirement, and the parliamentary secretary has yet to read the Quebec legislation. I invite him to read it.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we heard at committee recently was that workers in the traditional energy sector have jobs that pay really well. Compare that to the jobs that will be and currently are created by green tech companies, whether in wind, solar or otherwise. On average, they pay about 36% less than what a traditional oil and gas worker earns. If this is a just transition would transfer people from job to job, does the member see anything in the bill that would ensure that the worker who is making money in oil and gas is going to be making the same amount when they are transitioned to a different job?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague has hit on something. He is asking whether we saw anything in the bill that will create jobs. There is nothing there. There is talk about reports by officials, people appointed from the “Liberalist” who will submit reports, and about things that have already been done. There is nothing there.

I know that this is difficult for people from Alberta and western Canada. They have a resource-based economy. They have good-paying jobs. I understand them. I sympathize with that. The Bloc Québécois is always asking the Conservatives to show some openness, to think about the long term, to discuss this issue. We are debating. We get along. We are able to disagree.

However, when the Liberals come here and say that they want to train people, set up boards and produce reports, they should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of an Albertan who is waiting for the just transition and who is waiting to be convinced. It does not help the environment to have a bill like this one in which the government is unable to define objectives and methods, in which the government is asking people to simply trust it. It is always a big risk to believe a Liberal who tells us to trust them.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we heard from representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents many energy workers across the country. The Conservatives did not ask them questions; they used their time to do a political stunt. When we talk to these workers, they are very concerned about their seat at the table because they know change is coming.

It is really important that we actually have legislation that is strong enough, because this is about the tax credits that would be going out. If the tax credits are done by these functionaries, who knows where this is going to be and how it is going to happen? Will the Bloc be willing to come forward with amendments?

We are looking for the New Democrats to have regional voices and working-class people represented, as well as having public NGOs and youth at the table. We do not want just industry, so that it would not just be a carve-out of pals but would actually ensure that the jobs being created are good, sustainable, long-term jobs, and that they represent our regions.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. The point of my speech was to defend the very idea that the member for Timmins—James Bay raised. The trouble is that the NDP often talks about the importance of regional voices, but only until Quebec's jurisdictions come into play. In this case, regional voices and respecting regional voices means respecting Quebec, the agreements and the labour market partners commission, and integrating asymmetry.

If the other provinces decide that the framework presented in the bill suits them, and that reports might help them advance because these institutions bring together community stakeholders, the unions my colleague was talking about, if that does not exist in those provinces, then let them take the first step. However, this must never be done at the expense of recognizing what Quebec has already done. Why should we make an effort, advance, innovate and set an example if, every time the federal government is 20 years behind us, it decides not to recognize Quebec for its efforts?

I think that the NDP also needs to keep that in mind when we study this bill and make amendments to it.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about what this legislation talks about, which is basically report after report. Ultimately, the first report would not be until 2025, which is over a year and a half away. That is when the report would come in to decide what the government may do down the road.

I am sure the member recognizes in Quebec how he wants to efficiently get Quebeckers to work doing the jobs, but that ultimately, just like with any project, they are being delayed just in coming up with the idea. After that, it is another six years to create the jobs that need to be created. That pushes things down the road continually.

I wonder whether the member would comment on how he sees that affecting Quebec workers and making sure that Quebec keeps its people employed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised we are having a Conservative opposition day where the Conservatives are asking the government to come up with a plan to balance the budget in eight days. They are saying that five years is too long. One has to be reasonable. It depends on the project. I can tell my colleague that most of what is in the bill already exists in Quebec. We do not need additional resources or bureaucracy, but we will need the money to implement whatever is decided.

Sometimes reports and consultation are needed. The right people need to be appointed in the right places. Unions, employers and educational institutions all need to be included. We have to do it right. We must also not rush to produce as many reports as possible as quickly as possible, only for them to be shelved. There has to be a balance between the amount of bureaucracy and the usefulness of it all. The usefulness of what is in the bill is greatly reduced in Quebec, if not non-existent, because we have already thought of all this. We are simply waiting for the resources to be able to do more.

Obviously, those resources are in Ottawa.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the tomatoes are the only red things in my colleague's riding.

Who does he think stands to gain from this? Why are we here? Why choose such an ambiguous title? Why put such gobbledygook in something that should be very sensible and straightforward?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.

I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about this alleged just transition legislation brought forward by the Liberal government. Before we talk about this legislation, we should talk about the success of the Liberals with just transitions in the past, because they promised a just transition for coal workers. They said they were laser-focused on it and that anyone in the coal industry who was going to be displaced by their policies was going to get a just transition. They kept saying this, repeating it over and over again, making these false promises to coal workers.

Can we guess what? Those fake and false promises were actually discovered in the commissioner of the environment's independent auditor's report called “Just Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy”. The Auditor General looked at the just transition Liberals gave to coal workers, and let me summarize that it was garbage. They did absolutely nothing for coal workers.

Let us look at a couple of the excerpts in this report. One reads, “Overall, we found that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy for workers and communities.”

This is what Liberals do. They try to beat up on energy-producing provinces with punishing policies, but then they say not to worry, that they are going to be there for them and that they are going to make sure it is a just transition. Those are false promises, much like Liberal promises on housing. They say that they are going to solve housing and that they have a housing accelerator, which is going to accelerate something. However, it accelerates nothing. Liberals come up with other programs where they just line Liberal insiders' pockets with gold, all at the expense of taxpayers, because they actually do not give a darn about the workers' jobs they are going to displace.

The Auditor General was really clear about this. Liberals had years to deliver a just transition for coal workers and did absolutely nothing. The Auditor General's report also states that the analysis is there was “No federal implementation plan”. Liberals said they had a plan. No, they misled Canadians. The Auditor General said there was no federal implementation plan.

The report also said that there was “No formal governance structure”. When one does not have a plan, there is actually not going to be any formal governance structure. They should have just said they have no plan, much the same as they have no plan on housing, the economy or combatting the opioid crisis. This should actually be called the “no plan transition”, because there is zero plan. The terrible thing is that there is also almost zero accountability from the government.

The final thing the Auditor General report stated was that there was “No measuring and monitoring system” put in place. Again, when one does not actually have a plan, when one just says to coal workers that it is too bad, that they are out of a job and that we do not give a damn, of course one does not put in a formal governance structure. One has no system to measure and monitor.

Then the Liberals have the audacity to come back to this place and say to Canadians that they have new legislation, because they care about workers and are going to give them a just transition. The only transition they gave to coal workers was to be out in the cold without a job. That is their plan as they once again beat up on Alberta and Saskatchewan and say that they are going to transition their workers out of jobs, but they are going to have some grand transition plan to take care of them. They did not take care of a single darn thing with coal workers.

Let us look briefly at something the Liberals say about this grand transition plan to take care of workers. They say that they are going to set up a council, to be known as the sustainable jobs partnership council. Its mandate is going to be providing the minister and specified ministers with independent advice through a process of social dialogue. That and $1.50 will buy a double-double at Tim Hortons, which is effectively what workers are going to get with this piece of legislation. The Liberals are going to set up a council. Wow, that is really ambitious.

I do not have a lot of faith in the government, because with anything it touches, it has the opposite of the Midas touch. Do members remember the Midas touch? It turns everything to gold. Everything those guys touch turns into garbage. They say they are going to set this up. I say, “Yeah, right.” They say they are going to do it in a couple of years. I say, “Yeah, right.” I can go back to how they treated coal workers. They treated them as I would not treat my worst enemy. They were indifferent. They set up no program, all the while saying that they were setting up a program and that they were going to take care of the workers.

That is called “gaslighting”, and the Liberals gaslight Canadians constantly. They actually do it on housing, too. We talk about housing, and the minister pops up, puffs up his chest and says that no one has done more for housing, that they have a housing accelerator and that they have this program and that program. However, housing prices have doubled. Rents have doubled, so when the Liberals say they are going to do something, we should actually believe that what they are going to do is cause harm. The policies they have brought in across this country are harmful, including the revolving door of the justice system. It does not really matter what crime someone commits, they are going to be out, because the Liberals reformed the bail system.

People who shot up the street one day are out a couple days later, because the Liberals changed bail. They said they were going to reform it to make things better. Now they want us to believe they are going to have a just transition that is going to make things better for oil and gas workers. No one should believe them, and that is not just because of their absolute failure on other things such as housing, criminal justice, the opioid crisis or the mental health crisis.

I remember when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo had a bill to implement a three-digit suicide prevention number. The Liberals said they were going to help. It took two years to come up with a three-digit number. I know it is hard; it is three digits. They could not do it in two years, but now somehow they are going to plan a just transition with this unbelievable plan, the sustainable jobs partnership council. It is going to have some meetings, and it will be filled with Liberal list donors, just as they stack all the courts in this country with Liberal list donors. We can bet there is not going to be one person on this council who gives two craps about the oil and gas industry.

It is going to be packed full with their radical left-wing environmentalists. They will probably get the radical environment minister to put a bunch of his cronies on it, who will say they can heat their homes with hot air, like the hot air that comes from the government. They will not need oil and gas. We certainly will not have the electricity, because they do not have a plan to expand electricity generation or electricity distribution as they wipe out the oil and gas industry.

There will be no just transition for a single worker in this country under the current government. When the common-sense Conservative Party has a government, oil and gas workers will not have to be worried about being left out in the cold by a tyrannical, uncaring government. I can assure everyone of that.

Let us go back and look at some of the results from the Auditor General on the “Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities”, because it is a page-turner of absolute incompetence. The government is incompetent in almost everything, but its members really took it to a new level. They worked hard to be extra incompetent for coal workers, and I should give them credit, because that level of incompetence is hard to get to.

Let us look at a couple of things. The Auditor General went through the federal commitments and programs the Liberals said they were going to do. There are 10 of them. Does anyone want to guess how many they actually came through on? It was four out of 10, and they are not even the ones that would actually do anything for workers; they are the easy ones such as having an interdepartmental meeting to talk about something.

As I just said, the Liberals then have the audacity to tell Canadians they are going to plan this transition for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they basically have no seats. They do not care about the people there. They say they are going to plan the transition for them out of oil and gas, even though they left coal workers out in the cold, but they say not to worry because they are going to take care of it this time.

The finding under recommendation one was, “Natural Resources Canada had not led on the reporting on just-transition activities for coal workers and communities.” The Liberals did not report on the just transition activities for a single community. That is the first thing they did not do. Oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan should get ready.

Ronald Reagan said the scariest words that anyone can hear are, “I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” If Ronald Reagan were alive today, living in Canada, and heard the words of the Liberal government, he would be bloody terrified. When Liberals say they are coming to help, people should run in the other direction. Oil and gas workers know not only that the Liberals do not have their backs, but also that they are going to push them over the cliff.

The finding under task force recommendation two said, “Natural Resources Canada had not yet developed the just-transition legislation.” Liberals were supposed to do it in 2019. Now they have done this great thing in 2023, four years later, the sustainable jobs partnership council, which they get two years to set up. They are four years behind, and they are going to set up a council that is going to take two years because that is really hard. Setting up a council is hard work. We know how hard these guys work. It is going to take two years to get that set up. It is unbelievable.

We also know that no one on that council is going to care about oil and gas workers. No one on that council is going to care about the effects on the economy for Alberta or the effects on the economy for Saskatchewan. The council is going to be packed with Liberal donors.

With judicial appointments, there is really one qualification to be a judge in Canada right now with the Liberal government, and that is whether the person donated to the Liberal Party. The Liberals check the list and, if a person donated, that is great, he or she is in. On something like this, hard-core Liberals, anti-oil, anti-Alberta and anti-Saskatchewan people are what this sustainable jobs partnership council would be stacked with. The Liberals were supposed to get it done four years ago, but it is going to take another two years, so we would be at six years.

Recommendation three was, “Establish a targeted, long-term research fund for studying the impact of the coal phase-out and the transition to a low-carbon economy.” The Liberals did not do it. I know everyone was holding their breath thinking maybe they did something, but they did not do it. Will they actually do anything in this legislation? This is the question we have to ask ourselves.

Human nature is that we look at the past record to determine what the future performance will be. As the Liberals did absolutely nothing for coal workers, we can anticipate that they will do absolutely nothing for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why would they? Why do they care? They have absolutely no representation there. Well, they have one MP who seems pretty anti-Alberta from some of the statements he makes, so he might want to try to get a seat in Toronto Centre—Rosedale or something like that in the next election.

Recommendation five of what they were supposed to do was to “Create a pension bridging program for workers who will retire earlier than planned due to the coal phase out.” Did the Liberals do it? No, they did not. Coal workers get phased out, their pension is now going to be less, much like many of the Liberals' pensions are going to be less when they lose in the next election, but has anyone in the Liberal Party on that side apologized to coal workers, saying they promised they would bridge coal workers' pensions when they phased them out and they did not? Did they ever apologize? No, they did not. Why? They do not care because they are energy workers.

Now when Liberals tell energy workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan that they are going to phase them out, but not to worry because they will be there for them, I say that is a load of hooey. There is no way Liberals are going to be there for anyone.

Imagine the devastation for a worker in the energy sector who is phased out and then their pension is not bridged. That is bad enough, but guess what, when we look at a detailed, publicly available inventory with labour market information pertaining to coal workers such as skill profiles, demographics, locations and current and potential employers, since the Liberals ripped them off on pensions, they say that they are going to put together this database so that they can transition workers into new employment. That is okay, because maybe they'll get to punch in somewhere else. However, did they actually do that? No they did not. They stand here in this chamber, Liberal member after Liberal member, parroting that this is great. They bring in time allocation on debate on this after they literally screwed coal workers, and I tell members that they are going to do it again.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to remind the member for Dufferin—Caledon as well as all members to be judicious in their use of language and remember that we should use language that is fitting to this chamber. I am certain the member could find other ways to describe what is going on.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. However, I think about what the Liberals did to those coal workers, that they did not get them jobs, that they did not bridge their pensions. These are people with families, they have children, they have mortgages and they have to buy food. The Liberals did all of that to them. I could say that they did it intentionally, because they did not run the programs, they never apologized and have not set up a single program since. So, I think that word actually applies. I will not say it again, but they should be ashamed of themselves. I can tell members that we will do everything—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote please.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House I suspect you would find unanimous consent to call it six o'clock so that we can begin Private Members' Business.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to see the clock at 6 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑280, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust – perishable fruits and vegetables), be read the third time and passed.

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I did to deserve such applause and support from my Conservative colleagues, but I appreciate it. Sometimes it is possible to be transpartisan when one has good ideas. I tip my hat to my dear friends.

It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑280, which is extremely important for our farmers, particularly our fruit and vegetable growers. Bill C‑280 seeks to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to put vendors of perishable products, such as fruits and vegetables, at the top of the list by holding the production value in trust. Perishable goods are a special case when a company goes bankrupt because the supplier cannot simply take back its goods and resell them. This measure is necessary and our farmers deserve it. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C‑280.

As a representative of Quebec's agri-food capital, I am obviously very concerned about the agricultural industry and its artisans. I often say that they hold the only occupation that we need three times a day. That is why I want to thank the hon. member for York—Simcoe, who is sponsoring this bill in the House, and my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is co-sponsoring it.

I know how important it is for our two colleagues and all my Bloc Québécois colleagues to pass this bill quickly. The protective measure it will bring in is desperately needed across Quebec. We look forward to seeing it implemented. I share their eagerness to finally see our fruit and vegetable suppliers protected, so they can avoid seeing their crops go to the compost pile without being able to do anything about it. Not everyone in the House is quite as keen, despite the unanimous support this bill has received. We asked for unanimous consent to send Bill C-280 directly to the Senate, but unfortunately, some members would not give their consent.

This is a long-standing demand. The Liberals promised back in September 2014 to address this issue with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association if they were elected in 2015. They reiterated their commitment in 2016. The NDP and the Conservatives also made similar promises in their election platforms. It was also in their platforms in 2021, so I have to wonder why this has taken so long and why Bill C-280 could not be fast-tracked to the Senate.

We are now in 2023. The first promise was made in 2014 and we are in 2023. Better sooner than later, but better late than never. I am pleased to see that we are near our goal, especially given that the implementation of our protection will also help remove an irritant in our relationship with our American neighbours.

The sector's request of such a bill has been so strong since 2014 because on October 1 of that year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture revoked preferential access from its legislation for perishable agricultural products from producers here at home. Up until that point, Canadian and Quebec farmers were protected by this legislation in cases where American purchasers declared bankruptcy. Since Canada, for its part, did not have a trust mechanism for cases of buyer bankruptcy that could have protected American farmers, the U.S. decided to remove that security from Canadian suppliers. In short, they did that in response to a gap in our legislation.

Although an alternative process has been developed between the two countries, it is extraordinarily cumbersome, especially for smaller companies, which have to undertake the tedious process of filing a lawsuit. If they decide to take on this bureaucratic ordeal, they must post a bond worth double the amount claimed in the lawsuit, according to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. Then they are in a pickle, if I may say so. I am not just using that expression because we are talking about produce. In short, they are in a pickle and the major buyers know it. As a result, companies are forced to negotiate downward with the buyer, because they would still rather receive a fraction of the value of the fruits of their labour than nothing at all.

The U.S. is demanding that Canada provide protection similar to that offered by the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act before it will again give Canadian producers access to its program. Passing the bill we have before us today will provide protection not only for our producers doing business domestically, but also, with a little good faith on the part of the U.S. administration, for those doing business with American buyers.

I just want to point out here that the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act was adopted in the 1930s, so it is high time we adopted a similar mechanism.

I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, especially since you are my MP during House sitting weeks. I live in your riding while we are working here in Parliament. I hope you will hear my plea.

Over the course of many Parliaments, many committees have recommended implementing just such a measure. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which studied the bill, sent it back to the House without amendment. The committee approved it, with support from all the parties. Action on this is long overdue.

Before concluding, I want to make an aside and draw the House's attention to another issue related to food products and the difficulties that certain players in the supply chain may experience when a buyer goes bankrupt.

In my riding, there is a storage company that found itself in a difficult situation a few months ago. This company provides refrigeration and freezer services and serves as an intermediary in the transportation of perishable goods. After one of its clients went bankrupt, a bakery, the company ended up stuck with about 800 pallets of pies that did not belong to it. Since the bakery in question was under the authority of a trustee in bankruptcy at the time, the storage company could not dispose of the pies in any way. The situation went on for several weeks, causing major financial losses for the storage company since it could not get any income from the merchandise in question and it could not take on other contracts because the cargo was taking up half of its warehouse. The bakery finally hired a company to transport the stored merchandise, but that company was never paid for services rendered. The transportation company then turned to the intermediary, the storage company, for compensation for its losses, which put the storage company's financial viability at great risk.

At that point, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary. That was before the cabinet shuffle. The letter was cosigned by the Bloc Québécois transport critic, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. We felt that the intermediary was also a victim of the situation, and we asked the minister to consider including a provision in the Bills of Lading Act that would protect intermediaries responsible for goods in specific cases involving bankruptcy of the original business. Such situations become even trickier when perishable goods are involved, and I would like to take this opportunity to get everyone thinking about this issue.

In closing, to get back to the subject of my speech, let us pass this bill without delay, as its co-sponsor entreated us.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before we resume debate, I want to let the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot know that I am proud to be his MP.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats support this bill and want to see it advance.

This bill has already been the subject of many committee studies. My colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said recently that he has almost lost count of how many times, at different committees in different Parliaments, the bill has been considered. He went on to say that we have seen a recommendation for this type of measure to be enacted by the House of Commons.

The time is now. My NDP colleagues and I would like to see this bill pass through third reading to get to the Senate and start getting the traction it needs.

The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, and the thousands of people they represent want that too. They are waiting for action. I reiterate the news from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as well as the NDP caucus, that we look forward to the bill's speedy passage to the other place. We hope that it finds its way to the Governor General's desk to receive the royal assent quickly, because climate change is not waiting for government process.

Climate change is affecting growing seasons, shipping times and supply chains. It is contributing to Canada's ongoing infrastructure deficit. During the drastic flooding in B.C. due to an atmospheric river, B.C. got a first-hand view of how fragile Canadian supply chains are, because they rely on open roads, railways and ports. Let us add the black swan event of the global pandemic to supply chain challenges. Such black swan events are coming more often.

Since the start of the pandemic, it has been more difficult to transport goods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, which have short lifespans and need just-in-time logistics. With small profit margins, alongside big impacts on food security, any wasting of food directly affects the bottom line of farmers and producers, and it limits how we get food on tables.

Many farmers in Canada are feeling the stresses of trying to make ends meet in this volatile business. They feel the pressure of feeding not only Canadians but also the world. Right now, the government does not have their backs when something out of their control affects their bottom line.

In Canada, we depend on farmers and producers to feed our communities. Food sovereignty is a life-or-death business, and we cannot leave farmers and producers without a safety net if we are serious about protecting food sovereignty in this country.

The fresh fruit and vegetable industry has been calling for support to prevent farms from going bankrupt because of the lack of protection. In the supply chain specifically, it would be very beneficial. Supply chains are becoming more and more unreliable because of climate change.

Food loss because of supply chain limitations cannot happen fully on the backs of those who grow and produce our food. We need farmers and producers to thrive so that people can eat healthy, affordable food. Food spoilage is not only incredibly expensive, but it is also harmful to the environment. It contributes to climate change. Farmers and producers need protection from that. The Liberal government needs to get serious about helping farmers reduce wasted food and recover from any losses that are out of their control.

Food waste alone increases carbon dioxide and biomethane emissions, contributing to a warming planet. With more droughts, fires and floods, farmers and producers become more susceptible to these events. It is more challenging to get food from farm to table. Producers, suppliers and retailers must all be supported and encouraged to help get food to tables. However, let us get back to the bill.

Farmers and producers of fresh fruit and vegetables are taking incredible risks and hits to their viability, with an increased risk of filing for bankruptcy. For example, Canadian producers and growers selling to markets in the United States once had equal access to payment protection under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Since 2014, however, they have not been allowed to file a formal claim under PACA until after they post a bond of double the value of their original shipment. This is an expensive, risky ask when product shipments can be delayed and affected by many different points of the supply chain.

In addition, let us talk about the risks of natural water resources in Canada becoming scarcer. The amount of water and the number of water restrictions are putting a strain on farmers and producers, adding costs and risks to their businesses. They need government support as they deal with these mounting risks.

New Democrats have supported and will continue to support farmers and producers. In 2015, the New Democrats' federal election platform promised to “introduce a payment protection program for produce growers”, and we mean it, among other measures to keep farms in their stewards' hands and to allow those businesses to make the money they deserve. Protection for our farmers is critical.

Canadian farmers are essential workers. During the pandemic, they continued to work to keep our stores supplied. As large grocery store chains continued to make record profits, they downloaded costs and risks to their suppliers. Farmers and producers suffered, with no legislated support. That lack of a safety net needs to be corrected.

I will close by saying this bill is imperative to reduce the risk for farmers and producers and to assist them in remaining viable. As climate change continues to negatively impact food security and food sovereignty, we need our farmers.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

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.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-280, which was first introduced by the member representing the soup and salad bowl of Canada. I know you said not to come up with new riding names, but I think the hon. member appreciates it in this particular case. I would like to thank the member for getting the process started and for the important steps that have already been taken on the way to getting the bill through the parliamentary process.

The aim of the bill is to help our fruit and vegetable growers by reducing the financial risks they face. Growers and farmers work hard, take risks and provide Canadians with healthy produce. Furthermore, growers do not get paid in many cases until their produce goes through numerous steps of a long supply chain to get to the consumer. This is risky from a financial perspective, as the bankruptcy or insolvency of any of the players along the supply chain may result in the grower not getting paid.

The government has taken important steps to make things better for growers and farmers. One example is the passing of the safe food for Canadians regulations in 2018. However, the risk is not completely gone and we can still do more. We heard a lot from witnesses during the bill's study at the agriculture committee that our growers and farmers still face the problem of non-payment if a link in the supply chain becomes bankrupt or insolvent, which is a real risk already, given the tight profit margins. In short, this is why we are supporting Bill C-280.

We in the House agree that this bill is a good idea, but as we heard during the study of it at committee, it is not perfect and there are issues that the government and this House should continue to monitor to ensure that we maximize the bill's potential to assist growers. I note two issues in particular: first, the impact of the bill on access to affordable credit for growers and sellers and the fresh produce supply chain, and second, the potential for the bill to restore Canada's preferential access to the formal dispute resolution process under the United States' Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, the PACA, which regulates the fresh produce sector and provides financial protection for sellers.

In committee, members heard from a witness who was concerned that the changes made by the bill might make banks less willing to give loans, or they might charge more when lending to fresh produce sellers. This is because the bill would change the creditor priority in insolvency, and such changes could cause lenders to react with high credit costs or lower availability to compensate for higher risks of non-payment.

This witness had extensive experience in the fresh produce industry in both Canada and the United States, and his concerns stemmed from the impact that the PACA had south of the border. He explained to the committee that in his experience, U.S. lenders reduced crucial operating credit lines for produce sellers or required additional security, because the PACA deemed trust is paid ahead of all other loans and lines of credit in a bankruptcy or other payment default. It is important to note that the Canadian Bankers Association also raised this when the Department of Industry consulted on this issue several years ago. However, this was a minority view at committee, and most fresh produce industry representatives downplayed these credit risks. The committee gave appropriate weight to their assessment, given their knowledge and experience.

I am noting the concern here to invite the government to monitor the situation in the months following the entry into force of the legislation so that corrective measures can be taken in a timely manner if Canadian lenders decide to take the same approach as U.S. lenders. Industry witnesses before the committee emphasized the importance of trade credit to the fresh produce supply chain and, as such, I believe we will want to make sure the bill achieves its intended objectives.

A second issue to consider is getting back Canada's preferential access under the PACA. Before 2014, Canadians, like Americans, could use the PACA for free. Unfortunately, in 2014, the U.S. rescinded Canada's preferential access.

At this stage, we do not know for sure if passing Bill C-280 will result in PACA access being restored, and as far as I know, parliamentarians were not provided with any direct confirmation from the United States. While the committee heard from industry representatives that they believed restoration was likely in that case, this is another area where attention should be paid at the implementation stage. I trust that the government will do all it can to ensure that Bill C-280 leads to the restoration of preferential PACA access should the bill become law and will monitor the situation closely and on an ongoing basis.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the point made by my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants. Seemingly small legislative adjustments such as Bill C-280 can have significant positive impacts on our agricultural community. We should look for other opportunities to help our farmers and growers through regulatory and legislative tweaks, which could have positive impacts without adding more to the budget. The member from Kings—Hants mentioned streamlining regulatory approvals for agricultural products as one example. I look forward to hearing more about this and other ideas from the members of our agricultural community, including the parliamentary secretary, who is very enthusiastic about all things agricultural.

In summary, Bill C-280 is a good step toward supporting our hard-working fresh fruit and vegetable growers and making sure Canadians continue to have healthy food on the table. Let us also keep watching to make sure the bill reaches its potential.