SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 90

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2022 10:00AM
  • Jun/16/22 9:28:23 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, I would encourage the member to move away from that 35%. That is not the only issue. I have suppliers who have rearranged their supply chain and paid a higher price, and I have asked that question of the particular member. An exemption of 35% would exclude the other farmers who may have paid a higher price because their distributors rearranged their supply chains. Obviously, any solution I would advocate for would be a direct help toward farmers as opposed to the simple exemption to certain distributors who decided to continue to deal with Russia. Others rearranged their supply chains and may have paid a higher price, but those farmers also deserve a break, and that is the solution I would advocate for, as opposed to simply a blanket 35% exemption.
133 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/16/22 9:29:54 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his question. The farmers who paid for fertilizer last year for this spring signed a contract. I do not think it is fair that they pay a 35% tariff. That risk should be on the distributor or company that did not buy or have the fertilizer arrive at the right time. We are talking about the 35% tariff. However, what would have happened if a ship had sunk? Other risks could come into play as well. Business relations fall to the provinces, and I know the member prefers it when jurisdictions are respected. Other distributors have rearranged their supply chains. Do those farmers, who may have paid a higher price, deserve a lower price as well? I, for one, would advocate for a lower price for all farmers instead of just offering something to farmers who used distributors that are paying the 35% tariff. In my opinion, it should go directly to the farmer.
163 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border