- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
We can all agree that the provisions in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are poorly adapted to the reality of our agricultural producers and to the structure of agri-food supply chains.
Bill C‑280, which is co-sponsored by my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, seeks to establish a trust mechanism in the event that a purchaser becomes bankrupt. 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 acts. This bill will be extremely helpful to our producers and agri-food suppliers who do business with our neighbours to the south.
Prior to 2014, Canadian fruit and vegetable suppliers were protected by a U.S. law when doing business in the United States. When an American company defaulted or went bankrupt, our companies were protected by the U.S. regime. That is no longer the case, and the alternative process developed between the two countries is cumbersome, especially for our smaller businesses.
As of 2014, the United States decided to withdraw protections for Quebec and Canadian suppliers in the event that their American buyers become insolvent or file for bankruptcy. The American government made that decision, which penalizes and undermines our Canadian farmers, business owners and suppliers, because of the lack of an equivalent mechanism in the Canadian regulatory framework.
Right now, without that protection, Quebec and Canadian produce suppliers must go through a special process to take legal action under that law in the United States. According to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, suppliers are required to post a bond worth double the value of the shipment to initiate a claim. Most suppliers do not have that kind of cash flow and big buyers are well aware of that. Our suppliers are therefore forced to negotiate the buyer down to try to get a minimum amount of compensation rather than lose everything.
According to the testimony heard by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when examining this issue, the United States and the United States Department of Agriculture have been very clear. They will be looking for a deemed trust before they agree to have a conversation on whether they will give us back the treatment we had previously. A public servant also confirmed that “the trade of fresh produce between Canada and the U.S. has continued to rise over the last four years, by 55% for fresh fruits and 26% for fresh vegetables, showing that the U.S. remains an important market for [Quebec and] Canadian fresh produce.”
Clearly, reinstating protection for our farmers who do business in the United States is not all that far-fetched. In fact, I would argue that it is necessary and urgent. I also want to remind the Prime Minister that he committed to fixing this problem not two weeks, two months or even two years ago. In 2014, when he had only just been elected to lead his party, he committed to fixing this problem if he took office, as he did in the 2015 federal election.
Spoiler alert: His party has been running the federal government for almost 10 years. Why has it taken this long to get something done in support of our agricultural sector? This bill has the support of every party in the House. What is more, the bill is an environmental and social measure.
I do not know why it has taken so long. That said, when it comes to Liberal standards, we have seen worse than taking 10 years to deliver on a promise.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues in the House that I have the honour and privilege of representing the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, a rural and proudly agricultural region.
In my region, we have 2,000 farms that produce annual revenues of more than $600 million, a major contribution to the gross domestic product of the region, Quebec and Canada. Dairy farming alone represents nearly half of all agri-food operations in the Lower St. Lawrence region, but our passionate farmers work in countless other sectors, such as maple syrup production in Témiscouata, hog farming, cattle farming, and grain and potato farming. There are also produce growers who grow fruits and vegetables on our fertile land.
During my many visits and meetings with produce growers, I noticed that the representatives from the farming industry firmly and unanimously support this bill. That is why my esteemed colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will support our colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, the agriculture, agri‑food and supply management critic, so that Bill C‑280, the bill he co-sponsored, may come into force as soon as possible. I invite all my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same.
For the sake of regions such as the Lower St. Lawrence, where farming has been an integral part of our daily lives for centuries, and for the sake of helping the farmers who put food on our tables remain competitive and financially healthy, we must move forward with Bill C‑280.
886 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill before us would amend two federal laws, 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.
What this bill would actually do is provide special protection to suppliers of fruits and vegetables if a client were to go bankrupt. At present, the regime that applies in the event of a buyer bankruptcy allows a supplier to take back the goods sold to the buyer. In the case of fruits and vegetables, the problem is very simple. In the time it takes for the administrative measures to be completed, there is a high risk that the fruits and vegetables will no longer be fresh and their value reduced to zero. Suppliers would see the goods they worked so hard to produce be thrown away without having any recourse.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening to speak to Bill C-253. I will try to summarize it for the people who are watching and listening. This is a bill designed to make the Bank of Canada, that is, the central bank, accountable to the Office of the Auditor General. It is no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. I will explain why.
As we know, the bill introduced by the Conservative member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talks a lot about inflation. They want to find the villains who are responsible for inflation. I am going to talk about who, or rather what, is responsible for inflation. I will also propose concrete solutions.
What we need to understand about Bill C‑253 is that there are already accountability mechanisms in the Bank of Canada Act, and asking the Auditor General to do it is not the right way to go about it, precisely because the Bank of Canada must remain independent of any political influence. Also, of course, there is the fact that we must not interfere in monetary policy, despite what some of our colleagues would like.
Let us look at the accountability mechanisms in the Bank of Canada Act. The bank is required to be accountable. Once a year, two independent firms must audit the bank's affairs simultaneously. That is one example. The Bank of Canada is the only federal Crown corporation subject to this requirement.
To ensure that this accountability is in place, the act subjects the bank to oversight by virtue of which the Minister of Finance can also request special audits and reports. As we can see, there are already mechanisms in place.
Furthermore, the Office of the Auditor General is already authorized to exercise an oversight role in certain areas of the bank's business functions. It may review and audit the bank's operations and records, because the bank serves as the government's fiscal agent, advisor on public debt management and manager of the exchange fund account.
Given the mechanisms I just cited, it is not clear how the Conservative Party's proposal would add actual value to the current situation.
Let us now reflect on the Conservative Party's position in introducing this bill. Its position is disturbing. Beyond the legislative changes themselves, this bill is part of a broader ideological agenda on the part of the Conservative Party to question the competence of the Bank of Canada and to undermine public confidence in it.
I will go even further. The Conservative Party's approach is troubling and very dangerous. Of course, the Bank of Canada is a complex, even abstract, institution for the general public. Understanding its role, its responsibilities, the decisions it makes and everything that entails is not necessarily within the grasp of even those with a keen interest in economics. This makes it the perfect bogeyman for many politicians looking for an easy target to blame for the current economic climate and the record surge in inflation these past few years.
That much is quite clear. The new leader of the Conservative Party and member for Carleton said during the leadership race that he was even prepared to fire the current head of the central bank, in other words, the governor.
It is unbelievable that the leader of the official opposition said that. I think he did not look too far for his inspiration. I suspect he copied this formula from a certain neighbour to the south.
If the Prime Minister were to fire the governor of the central bank because he did not agree with his monetary policy or because he needed someone to blame for the current inflation crisis, that would seriously undermine the independence of this institution, which is one of Canada's fundamental institutions.
It would also be an irrational, even impulsive act that could have devastating consequences for Canada's international image, its stability and also its ability to attract foreign investors.
We can all agree that firing the governor of the central bank is an idea that we cannot really take seriously. We can understand the desire to identify those responsible for certain crises, but firing the governor of the Bank of Canada will not solve the inflation crisis.
I am not saying that we must refrain from criticizing the role of the central bank. What I am saying is that although the governor's decisions can be questioned, it is irresponsible to go so far as to dispute the economic situation or inflation.
We note that, in the past few years, the Bank of Canada still achieved good results. Yes, I think it is okay to question the role of the Bank of Canada. That said, in 1991, the Bank of Canada set a target in order to limit inflation. Since then, it has always managed to keep inflation within a range of 1% to 3%.
It is okay to question whether the central bank's monetary policy will allow us to tame inflation for Quebeckers and Canadians. It is also reasonable to question whether the government used the central bank as an overly generous ATM because of the pandemic. However, we must take the time to put things into context and consider the big picture. We must, of course, avoid intellectual shortcuts, and avoid critics who take intellectual shortcuts.
Everyone would also agree that it is a question of intellectual rigour and honesty towards our constituents. We must go beyond simplistic discourse. I will put things in perspective in order to explain the cause of today's inflation. I would say that the vast majority of the factors that influence inflation are beyond the central bank's control. I would say that nearly 70% of the external drivers of inflation are not necessarily related to what can be controlled here in Canada.
I am thinking of factors, other than monetary policy, over which the Bank of Canada has no control. These include supply chains, which are in shambles because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. These factors have exacerbated inflationary pressures because of the impact they have had on the grain and fuel markets.
The central bank is one of the most respected central banks in the world. It has a reputation. The inflation that we are experiencing in Canada is not unique to our economy; it is being felt in all OECD countries.
Again, it is okay to criticize the central bank and its governor, but it is very dangerous and counterproductive to draft legislation containing language designed to attack the very legitimacy of the institution. That is what the Conservatives are trying to do through Bill C‑253, which seems to be fuelling incendiary rhetoric.
The Bloc Québécois will not play along, and that is why we are voting against this bill.
1158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is good to have a targeted measure for people who are truly in need, low-income Canadians and the most vulnerable.
My colleague mentioned the central bank. I think that it is also important to point out that we must reaffirm our confidence in our institutions. That is very important.
We heard many things from a new party leader, in particular that he wanted to abolish Canada’s central bank. It is sensible and perfectly normal to criticize the role of Canada’s central bank. We need to understand that, as an institution, it has succeeded in containing and maintaining inflation at a rate of 1% to 3% since 1991. Right now, however, we are facing the unknown, in terms of both supply and demand. Obviously, there are a number of external factors beyond the Bank of Canada’s control that are driving the rise in inflation. In this respect, we need to implement targeted measures, and the Bloc Québécois agrees.
I hope that the government will learn how to take action when faced with a particular situation rather than waking up five months later as it is doing now.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 9:30:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her speech.
We know Canada and its allies have shut Russian banks out of the SWIFT network. However, some banks have yet to be removed from the system.
What is the government's plan to remove all Russian banks from the SWIFT system?
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:18:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Emergencies Act would make it possible to freeze protesters' bank accounts or stop illegal funding.
That is not true, however. The existing Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act already provides for that. This act allows financial institutions to freeze funds that are either obtained through criminal activity or used to fund criminal activity.
The government is trying to spin things, but there is already legislation in place. What the government is saying is completely untrue.
It is not possible to invoke the Emergencies Act without reasonable grounds, as set out in the act.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
