44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/16/22 9:09:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I reject the premise of the hon. member's speech. If the Liberals were so terrible for agriculture, then why are farm receipts up by 13.7% over last year? Why are crop receipts up over 9.2% over last year? Why are livestock receipts up by 13.4% from last year?
The member mentioned fertilizer and the 35% increase. I understand there is a worry about that, but I am more worried about the 100% increase of fertilizer. What about the farmers and the distributors who rearranged their supply chains and did not pay that 35% but paid a higher price? Should those farmers not be compensated?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 9:23:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands, a very good colleague of mine.
I am pleased to rise virtually and take part in this debate on global food insecurity. This is an issue that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working on for the past week. We have had the opportunity to hear from a number of witnesses, including the Ukrainian agricultural minister. We know how important a contributor Ukraine is to the world's grain supply.
Of course, the war caused by Vladimir Putin is illegal. I wish to express my solidarity with the Ukrainian people, who are still resisting and fighting every day to maintain sovereignty over their territory.
We have heard numerous stories over the past few weeks. What is concerning is that Ukraine typically exports about five to six million tonnes of grain per month. Last week, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that Ukraine was able to export only one million tonnes of grain in May. Obviously, that is causing a ripple effect in the world market. It will cause massive famines in some African countries. This is not only worrying for the Ukrainian people, it is also worrying for developing countries that are not fortunate enough to have such a strong agriculture industry or to get the same yield from their land.
Canada plays a fairly important role in the world. More than 20 million tons of wheat are stuck in Ukraine right now. The Ukrainian port is under Russian blockade. I do not need to repeat everything my colleagues from all parties have said. We have seen the consequences of this war.
I want to reassure the House that our Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are on the job. They have had several meetings with actors at the international level. G7 and G20 countries are on the job. They are taking action and looking for strategies. It is not easy. It is not just about whether people can farm the land safely. It is also about finding ways, if the land can be farmed and the harvests are good, to export all that grain without access to ports. There is the rub. It is extremely difficult.
Last week, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was told that Ukraine's rail network is not the same as in the rest of Europe. There can be wait times in excess of 27 days. Ukraine asked us to build temporary silos, which can store grain safely for four months while awaiting export. Will Ukraine be able to ship its grain around the world in four months?
We are working on all of these issues with several stakeholders. Unfortunately, it is hard to say very much in just five minutes, but I want to reassure my colleagues. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had several meetings with G7 countries. I know that we are working very closely with Ukraine to come up with solutions. Canadian logistics experts are saying that trucks might have to be used, because that is the only way to get the grain out. Canada will play an important role in this fight to ensure that the whole world has access to food.
Again, this is not a partisan issue. I want to thank all my colleagues who have participated in tonight's debate and those who will be speaking later on, too.
594 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 9:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I do have the highest esteem for my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I think she is a great member of Parliament.
In the immediate term, when we are discussing global food security, I would certainly advocate for any programs that go toward increasing the amount toward the World Food Programme, because that is the only way we have. There are vehicles in place and there are systems in place already, and if we reinvent the wheel, we are not going to get the food in time to stop famine in certain countries.
Canada will be able to eat, but at what price? There are countries, unfortunately, in the southern hemisphere that will simply run out of food. Canada has already announced $70 million for the World Food Programme, and I would certainly advocate for that to be increased, if it needs to be increased.
In the longer term—
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
