44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place today and speak to Bill C-280, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, deemed trust, perishable fruits and vegetables. I am pleased to second this bill introduced by my colleague from York—Simcoe, in June of this past year, to support the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers.
Last week, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill S-227, establishing a national food day. During that speech, I took the opportunity to outline four factors that influence how much structure a particular food commodity gets and its efficient marketing between producers and buyers.
The factors were the perishability of the product, the complexity of its biology or technology, the ratio of buyers and sellers, and the international setting into which that product is marketed or traded. Today, I want to focus on one particular sector and one particular factor.
It is well known that fresh fruits and vegetables are highly perishable with a limited shelf life. I believe it is important for us to protect our farmers during the bankruptcy of a buyer. Unfortunately, current existing laws do not take this into account. The perishability of the product for sale is at the heart of the justification for this legislation.
This legislation aims to resolve this concern by establishing a deemed trust for fresh produce sellers, ensuring they have priority access to an insolvent buyer’s assets related to the sale of fresh product. It is important for us to note that the legislation also comes at no cost to the federal government.
The big banks will likely be opposed to this legislation, and I will come back to this point later.
The need for a financial protection mechanism has been a major focus of the sector for several years and has been included among many recommendations by stakeholders. A deemed trust mechanism is needed to address gaps in market stability, trade and food security. It is crucial that we help ensure Canadians continue to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables.
Growing, harvesting, packing and marketing fruits and vegetables comes with risks and costs that are unique to the production of perishable goods and returns on these investments are delayed until payment is collected, which is usually long after the product has been consumed by Canadians or has spoiled due to delayed payment.
Bill C-280 establishes an important tool to ensure that growers receive payment for their products, even in the event of a buyer bankruptcy. That means when produce has arrived at its destination, even if the buyer is unwilling to pay, the farmer will still get paid at least partially. Unlike in other buyer-seller relationships with perishable food, a farmer is not able to find and ship to another seller to make up for the lost sale.
It should be noted that in addition to providing healthy food to Canadians, the fresh produce supply chain supports 249,000 jobs in Canada. It is important that we continue to support these jobs and workforce in our country.
The introduction of a financial protection mechanism in Canada would also open the door to the reinstatement of preferential treatment under the U.S.'s Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act, or PACA for short, for Canadians selling produce into the United States. This preferential treatment had been in place prior to 2014 when it was rescinded by the U.S. due to a lack of reciprocal protection in Canada for U.S. sellers.
PACA was established in the U.S. at the request of the fruit and vegetable industry to promote fair trade within the industry. Since it was rescinded in 2014, several organizations representing parts of the Canadian agricultural sector have been lobbying consistently for an amendment to Canada’s laws so that the U.S. would revisit Canada’s preferential status.
The key issue that led to Canada’s preferential treatment being rescinded was protection in the case of insolvency for U.S. sellers, which has been difficult for Canada to implement since agricultural concerns are a shared responsibility between provincial legislatures and the federal government.
Before 2014, if bankruptcy or insolvency in the supply chain resulted in Canadian producers not getting paid, to start the dispute resolution process with preferential treatment under PACA would only cost the Canadian company $100. This dispute process was helpful and affordable to Canadian farmers because the traditional method of repossessing shipments would not work, as I said earlier, due to the high perishability of the product in question.
Without preferential access, Canadian companies trying to recover unpaid bills must post double the value of what they are trying to recover as a bond to make the claim. For an example, a small producer who is owed $50,000 would have to post $100,000 in cash to make a claim, effectively removing $150,000 from their cash flow or operating line for up to a year. Many cannot afford this and would simply walk away, losing what is rightfully owed to them, putting Canadian businesses at a steep disadvantage.
Canada did not choose to leave this agreement. Instead, we had our preferential status revoked in 2014 because U.S. legislators felt that their American suppliers to Canada were not adequately protected. Canadian companies are now treated under PACA the same as any other foreign licence.
In 2011, a bilateral regulatory co-operation council established by both the U.S. and Canada and created in Canada was created to address regulatory incompatibility between the U.S. and Canada that could be hampering trade. The issue of this inadequate trust protection was one of 29 issues identified.
It has been eight years since our Canadian fruits and vegetable farmers had preferential treatment under PACA, and it is time we change that. This bill offers the financial protection needed for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers to protect and support Canadian produce growers. Bill C-280 would pave the way for a reciprocal arrangement that would support Canadian businesses selling to our largest trading partner. Obviously, that is the U.S. Our farmers need a larger market to sell perishable produce. In my area, the greenhouse industry exports more than 75% of their production across the border to the U.S. and they need to have peace of mind, when they ship their products, that they will be getting paid.
It is important to understand that Bill C-280 would not require the government to offset or backstop losses incurred by farmers in the event a buyer could not meet its financial obligations. The legislation being proposed would create a deemed trust, which would cover accounts receivable, cash and inventory of the buyer stemming from the sale of produce on short-term transactions with payment terms not exceeding 30 days. Essentially, if a Canadian company sold produce to a U.S. buyer, who then resold it but did not pay the Canadian company, the trust would provide the mechanism to recover cash or accounts receivable for what was sold.
I am very proud to support local farmers in my riding and farmers across Canada by supporting this bill to give them the peace of mind they need. In particular, in southwestern Ontario there is a large greenhouse sector and a vibrant fresh fruit and vegetable sector. A recent bankruptcy of a vegetable marketing enterprise in southwestern Ontario only further supports the need for this legislation. The Minister of Agriculture has stated to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that this legislation is not necessary because there have been negligible losses due to bankruptcy. I am sure that the farm that suffered a $1-million loss very recently because of the marketing company bankruptcy would very much disagree with that statement, and I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle would not bow to pressure from the big banks and support this bill.
The recommendation for a financial protection mechanism is not a new idea. It has been proposed repeatedly by stakeholders for several years. It has been long enough. It is time for us to take these recommendations and turn them into action. We need to show farmers that we support their efforts, their time and their resources and acknowledge the financial uncertainty it takes to produce perishable goods for our country. Let us stand with our farmers and protect them so they may continue to produce these very essential needs.
I am proud to second this bill, speak to this initiative brought forward by my colleague and champion the cause for fresh fruit and vegetable producers. I hope that my colleagues around this room will also support this initiative for our farmers.
1470 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-280, which amends the the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to provide that 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 produce and becomes bankrupt or subject to a receivership or applies to the court to sanction a compromise or an arrangement. My neighbour and esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is our agriculture, agri-food and supply management critic, co-sponsored this bill.
Given the demand in Quebec for this measure, which could be helpful for our agricultural community, we could have introduced it. One of our wineries in Shefford reached out to let me know that, as a producer and processor in the wine industry, La Belle alliance agrees with the amendment proposed in Bill C‑280. They said they see the amendment as additional protection for produces of perishable fruits and vegetables that could help protect small- and medium-sized agricultural businesses from suffering undue losses in the event of the insolvency of commercial buyers.
Le Potager Mont-Rouge said that this is a bill that they are really passionate about because it ensures that producer sellers are financially protected. Their profit margins are already razor thin, and they are impacted by many external factors such as price fluctuations, imports and climate change, to name but a few. They have been in a situation like this themselves and have lost thousands of dollars.
This testimony from these two businesses shows how important this bill is. The Bloc Québécois is attentive to their concerns, so we are in favour of this bill and support it. I will therefore begin by explaining its benefits and then talk about the division of powers and the litigation system.
First, passing the bill could demonstrate to the U.S. government that Canada has a trust mechanism in place for cases of buyer bankruptcy. Indeed, the lack of such a mechanism in Canada was one of the main reasons why, in 2014, the U.S. decided to withdraw U.S. buyer bankruptcy and insolvency protection from Canadian suppliers. The Canadian government had actually committed to developing a legal framework similar to the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA, and thus restoring coverage under their bankruptcy protection law for perishable foods to protect our industry from losses in the event U.S. buyers went bankrupt.
Groups have been calling for this since their PACA coverage ended back in 2014. This protection is necessary because food products like fresh fruit and vegetables are perishable, and a supplier cannot simply take them back and resell them if a buyer goes bankrupt. The protection is intended to allow licensed suppliers that have a contract with a U.S. buyer to take legal action against the buyer in the event of non-payment due to bankruptcy.
The new process will require the value of the shipment to be held in trust in the bankrupt buyer's name so that the producer can recover this amount as a creditor. Before 2014, Canadian fruit and vegetable farmers were protected by a U.S. law if they were doing business in the United States and a company failed to make payment or went bankrupt. This is no longer the case, and the alternate procedure developed between the two countries is very complicated, especially for our smaller businesses.
Quebec's agricultural model is at the family farm scale and on a human scale. Currently, without this protection, Canadian suppliers of fruits and vegetables have to go through a special process to file suit under this legislation in the United States.
According to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, suppliers have to deposit a bond equivalent to twice the amount required in the suit. Most suppliers do not have that much in liquid assets and the major buyers know that all too well. They are then forced to negotiate downward with the buyer to get at least some compensation instead of losing everything, especially since this type of debt is not a priority in a business' bankruptcy. Suppliers who are not protected do not have much chance of receiving decent compensation through the ordinary process. Under this bill, the trust mechanism ensures that the purchaser is the guarantor of the value of the shipment, without owning it, in the event of a default due to the application of one of the two pieces of legislation. The legislation stipulates that the buyer has 30 days to make the payment under the contract.
Under the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council initiative, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are committed to establishing comparable approaches in order to achieve the common goal of protecting fresh fruit and vegetable vendors from Canada and the United States from buyers who are not concerned with their payment obligations.
I will start with a bit of background. The legislation was first was created in the 1930s to try to protect vegetable producers from the multiple bankruptcies of their buyers. It then became an important tool in rebalancing the commercial relationship between producers and buyers. It is essentially designed to allow a licensed supplier who has a contract with a U.S. buyer to sue that buyer under the act in the event of a default in payment because of bankruptcy. The process will allow the value of the shipment to be placed in a trust in the name of the bankrupt so that the supplier can recover the amount owed as a creditor. Given the speed with which produce is resold by a merchant or spoils, it is quite rare that a fresh produce repossession situation will meet these criteria. This means that perishable food producers would be given super-priority status so they do not have to wait for the bankruptcy settlement to recover their property. However, in the context of the above conditions, producer associations explained that 15 days is not long enough, given that typical payment terms are about 30 days. However, 30 days is too long to expect to recover a product that can be resold. This provision is not well suited to the structure of the supply chain, which often operates with intermediaries such as wholesalers.
Second, with regard to jurisdictions, the most sensitive issue is the fact that Canada cannot really quickly pass a law like the one in the United States. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or PACA, is a program to protect farmers in case of bankruptcy, but it also encompasses all of the dispute settlement mechanisms for perishable goods. In Canada, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act falls under federal jurisdiction, but the regulations surrounding contracts fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. A legal framework like the PACA therefore cannot be developed unless there are negotiations or a collaboration between the federal government and the provinces, which is what we are hoping will happen. One of the arguments put forward by the federal government is that most trade disputes are resolved before bankruptcy occurs and so most of the American framework deals with issues that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Since it is complicated to operate using multiple dispute settlement regimes, the federal government just gives up rather than trying to find even a partial solution to the problem. We need to work on that.
Third, the official figures are much lower and limit the timeframe for claims to about 15 days. The major difference between the government and the industry figures can be explained by the fact that in order for it to become an official statistic, the producer must file a complaint. Most of the time, producers do not necessarily use official channels because they are too complex, and even more so after the end of privilege. Producers often have special business relationships with their client and try to accommodate them. The argument that there are few claims or that they represent a small percentage of farm receipts is very subjective. Producers used to have protection, but no longer do. We are simply being asked to restore protection given that, because of its proximity and the nature of goods, the United States is by far the most important trade partner for perishable goods. Restoring this protection for our producers who do business with the United States is not far-fetched at all.
Although the government is putting forward some arguments to demonstrate that an insurance similar to PACA is not the best option, especially because of the cost of credit and shared jurisdictions, we will continue to defend this bill. We are under the impression that the Liberal Party seems to want to defend its friends in the banking sector.
In conclusion, this bill is simply a response to the agricultural sector. Two years after Canadian producers' preferential access to PACA was removed, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the issue. A number of key witnesses appeared before the committee. The NDP, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have all, at various times, pledged to fix the problem. From our perspective, it is clear that we need to move forward with this bill.
I thank my Conservative colleague for introducing this bill. It can make things better for businesses in Shefford, as I said in my introduction. Obviously, the pandemic was a unique situation, and it also exacerbated various issues in the agricultural sector.
I want to say one last thing. As the member for Shefford, I proudly represent a riding where agriculture is at the heart of its economy. This bill is a common-sense measure that gives farmers a little extra help to get through this difficult period, for their mental health, for their survival. As we know, farm succession is already facing several threats. Perhaps this bill will address some of the concerns of the next generation of farmers and give them the desire to continue, to produce what we eat every day and what sustains us. We need farmers.
Once again, I thank my colleague for this bill. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour, to support our agricultural model.
1742 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, York—Simcoe is the soup and salad bowl of Canada and Lake Simcoe. At this very moment, the planting season has begun for fresh fruits and vegetables, and I want to wish all farmers right across Canada the best of luck.
I know we are not allowed to use props, and I will set him down, but Gwilly flew in all the way from Bradford West Gwillimbury for this debate tonight.
Canadian farmers have been doing their part, working hard this spring to plant delicious produce to feed our nation. These farmers deserve our support, no matter if they are growing carrots in the Holland Marsh, potatoes in Brookfield, celery in Winnipeg, bell peppers in Abbotsford, tomatoes in Leamington or peaches in Vineland.
Through the establishment of a limited deemed trust for produce farmers, we can safeguard Canada's food security, promote Canadian produce exports and increase the affordability of domestic produce for Canadian consumers. Simply put, the trust is a tool that would be used by sellers of produce to recover the money made from the sale of their produce when a buyer goes bankrupt.
Unfortunately, the Liberal members have made it clear that they are completely out of touch with the boots-in-the-mud, real-world realities faced by our country's produce farmers. the Liberals claim that their one size-fits-all approach to Canadian agriculture works and that the bill is not needed, but they could not be more wrong. The government fails to acknowledge that fresh fruits and vegetables are highly perishable or that produce growers have unique challenges that differ from other products and industries.
There are already many supports available to other agricultural sectors, like dairy and grain, that are not available to the produce sector. It is common sense to provide support that is crafted specifically for the produce sector. More than anyone else, Bill C-280 would benefit the small and medium-sized family farms and farming operations, which are the backbone of the country's produce sector.
Seventy-five per cent of fruit and vegetable producers are small businesses. Their average sales are $85,000 or less a year. This is a sector with small margins, and it is these sorts of farms that will benefit most from limited financial protection. One missed payment from a bankrupt buyer could lead to many of these farms closing their doors for good.
Fortunately, this bill will promote financial stability across the entire supply chain and support payment for suppliers all the way back to the producers. A stalk of celery is not the same as a carton of eggs, and a tomato is not the same as a piece of beef. The government must recognize the unique challenges facing the produce sector and recognize there are currently glaring deficiencies in our bankruptcy laws for these growers.
Bill C-280 has been a long time coming. I would like to thank the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Holland Marsh Growers' Association and the many other agriculture organizations that have supported this important bill.
I am also grateful for the real-life expertise of Fred Webber, former president of the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation. Fred was also an official in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where his responsibilities included the PACA deemed trust. His insights were invaluable as this bill was drafted.
Hard-working farmers do not want a handout. After all, this bill costs taxpayers nothing. They just want to be able to sleep at night without worrying about unpaid invoices and spoiled product as they work to grow the fresh fruits and vegetables we all enjoy.
Canadian fresh produce farmers deserve to be paid for the food they grow. They are the ones knee-deep in the mud working the field every day to grow our country's fruits and vegetables. It is time for members of this House to roll up their sleeves, put on their rubber boots and support this common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-280.
681 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
