SoVote

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/16/22 9:29:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I am going to come back to the same issue again, because farmers in our ridings keep asking us about it. The fertilizers were purchased and paid for before the war broke out. They are now paying a 35% tariff that was imposed when the war started. However, the farmers had already paid for their orders. Now they have to add a 35% tax, which goes to the government and does absolutely no harm to Russia. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, as a government representative, why has the government still not done anything about this?

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Drouin

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

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/16/22 9:31:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, my colleague and I worked together very well on the ALS caucus, and I enjoyed working with him on that very much. I want to talk about the aid levels Canada is contributing. I do not think anyone in this place will be surprised by that. Under the present government, we are currently at 0.3%. Many people would think the Liberal government, especially with what we heard from the Prime Minister in 2015, would have contributed more, but in fact our highest overseas development assistance came under Joe Clark, when he was the foreign affairs minister, and the Conservative government. We did not get to our target, but we did get to 0.5%. I will say that the Conservative Party of Joe Clark is definitely not the Conservative Party we have now, which ran in 2019 with a massive cut to ODA. When can we expect the Liberal government to live up to the very low standards the Conservative government has set with regard to development assistance?

171 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

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

The Assistant Deputy Chair

Jun/16/22 9:32:13 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, we have to leave that for another opportunity. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

20 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/16/22 9:33:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, it is an honour today to rise in the House to speak to this very important issue. I will say from the outset that I have certainly learned a lot from sitting here and listening to the debate over the last few hours about the realities of the situation and, indeed, I have learned a lot of information by listening to my colleagues in the NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc and what they have had to contribute. First of all, the thing that I find most alarming is the fact that almost one out of every 10 people in the world is currently facing a problem with respect to accessing enough food. That is extremely problematic, and I genuinely believe that Canada has a role to play in that. With respect to the line of questioning that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has been raising over the last few hours, I believe that role is most definitely going to have to increase, in particular as we move forward into the future. We do know that, by 2050, we will need to be producing globally about 70% more food than we currently are. Therefore, when we consider some of that information, notwithstanding the war that is going on in Ukraine, because that is a whole separate issue, there is certainly a role for Canada to play in ensuring that there is access to food throughout the globe. It is not just from a humanitarian perspective, and I asked this in one of my questions earlier. The humanitarian perspective is extremely noble. It is extremely important for a country like Canada to play that role, and I believe that Canada feels an obligation from the humanitarian perspective, but more importantly, it comes back to what the Minister of International Development said in his opening speech on this earlier this evening, when he said that “international assistance is conflict prevention”. If we can make sure that we are playing a very active role in ensuring that people have access to food, we are going to help reduce the conflicts that are happening, which inevitably quite often spill into international conflicts. Another member said, earlier this evening, that wars quite often start as a result of a lack of food, in one way or another, directly or indirectly. When we consider that and consider the real implications of that, it makes absolute sense. A basic human need for survival is the access to food, and when we get to a point where that is not the case, we are going to have conflict. I will just talk, very quickly, about what is going on in Ukraine. When we consider the size of Ukraine, which is the fifth-largest supplier of wheat, we can very quickly see how in a global market this is going to affect different countries and different stakeholders very quickly. Specifically, Ukraine produces 50% of the wheat in Lebanon, 43% in Libya, 22% in Yemen and 21% in Bangladesh. Let us just imagine for a second what happens to the supply chains and the various individuals at the various parts of the production of food when they suddenly cannot access that food. It really makes me think of the insecurity that will exist throughout the world and the conflicts that might end up starting as a result of that. I am looking forward to listening to the rest of what members have to contribute tonight. Certainly, from my perspective, one of the things that are front and centre and that I worry about the most is what that conflict will be like if Canada does not step in and increase our contributions quite a bit more over the years, as we see the demand for food growing throughout the globe.

634 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/16/22 9:37:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I likewise have found this debate very valuable here this evening. There is a unique situation in Ukraine. There is a lot of grain and other agricultural commodities that are there but cannot get out. Some of the neighbouring countries to Ukraine still have a certain level of access to some of those commodities, but there has to be, I would suggest, a significant global effort to make sure that we can engage the global logistics supply chain to ensure that the wheat can get to market. There are a huge number of other challenges, but specifically when it comes to the logistics to help get that wheat to market, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has any suggestions as to how Canada can help in that process.

130 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/16/22 9:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, as I said, I am learning quite a bit about this tonight in this debate. I will be the first to admit that this is not my field of expertise, but I will say that I have heard both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and I believe a Conservative member earlier speak to Canada's expertise as it relates to the logistics of moving wheat. Canada can play a huge role in that. I do not personally know exactly what those solutions are, but again, if this is another way that Canada can be an exporter of our incredible understanding and capabilities when it comes to the logistics around this, then we should play a role in that, not just from a humanitarian perspective, but indeed from a global security perspective. Not only is it a problem that Ukraine cannot move the wheat right now, but now it is starting to talk about problems with respect to getting the seed in the ground for next year. I would agree with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot that we need to work quickly to help address these problems with Ukraine so that this does not become a problem that will occur again next year.

212 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/16/22 9:40:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, what I am hearing is that there are huge needs and that Canada is making an effort to respond. I am thinking about the future, however, because we also need to look ahead. Traditional or ancestral grains are often turned down on the global market because people prefer wheat, rye or barley. Would diversity not be a good thing, and would it not be good to encourage diversity in areas struggling with food insecurity?

76 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/16/22 9:40:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, now we are really getting out of my field of expertise. I certainly would not want to be weighing in on the appropriate grains that should be moving throughout the global market. I am more than willing to accept that it is a valid question and that perhaps there is an opportunity for Canada to play a role and be a contributor to that. The member might have a very good point. I personally do not know the answer to it, but I would love to hear the answer to it.

93 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Jun/16/22 9:41:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the parliamentary secretary made a good point with regard to the vulnerability of other nation-states. Let us take Lebanon as one example. We already know it is tested with regard to the political crisis that it faces. There have been humanitarian issues as well. We know there is going to be vulnerability for regular shipments, even if there is some normalization in the future. What would the member suggest we can do for a state like Lebanon, which we have identified is extremely vulnerable right now? What is this country willing to do to increase its stability knowing that this is a real vulnerability to public safety, food security and the nation-state itself?

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/16/22 9:42:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, this goes back a bit to the question from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, which is if Canada has expertise with respect to assisting Ukraine with the logistical movement of wheat so it can get to countries such as Lebanon much more efficiently, quickly and reliably. The reality is that when global markets are so interconnected, the slightest little changes can throw a huge wrench into the operation. For a country such as Ukraine, which is the fifth-largest producer of wheat in the global supply, that really becomes problematic in terms of when that starts to be disrupted.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Jun/16/22 9:43:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot. I rise to participate in this take-note debate on global food security, which was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the member for Foothills. As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I have had the opportunity to hear from many stakeholders from around the world about the topic we are discussing this evening. What stood out to me the most was that all of the witnesses projected the same unfortunate reality that the world is at risk of famine in the coming months. Some people may be wondering what Canada can do about this. Let us be clear. Canada should be a global leader in producing and exporting food and easing any global food shortages. However, our country is struggling to get many of its products out to the global market. Whether because of failed trade agreements, lack of processing capacity or even the labour shortage, our country is behind where it should be. It should be one of the world's food production powerhouses. Today's debate seeks to shed light on the problem, which begins of course with the war in Ukraine, but also with many other global tragedies. Let us be honest: The government is contributing to the failures we are seeing today. Many of the problems we are seeing have been amplified by the current government. I would like to begin by discussing one of the problems that, in my opinion, strongly affects farmers, in other words the tariffs that Canada has imposed on Russian fertilizer. This financial burden is being borne by farmers and, once again, no relief has been provided to them. Worse, Canada is the only G7 country to impose such a tariff on Russian fertilizer, and it is our Canadian farmers who are paying the price and being punished. We have proposed solutions. We asked the Liberal government to grant an exemption from the surcharge for fertilizer purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would compensate the farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for these tariffs. Again, the Liberals said no. At a time when the world is facing an imminent threat of food insecurity, we are asking Canadian farmers to produce more. However, they are dealing with other policies that could limit their production, such as reducing fertilizer use and gas taxes. The cost of inputs, such as crop protection products and fertilizers, recently increased dramatically, further reducing our farmers' already razor-thin margins. Ultimately, farmers are price takers and cannot recoup additional costs, unlike many other businesses. These crop inputs are some of the highest expenses for grain growers. They are used as efficiently as possible, but their use should not be limited by a government policy. Canada can be part of the solution, but crops do not grow overnight. We therefore need to ensure that our farmers have the means to increase yields and production to help meet global food shortages. The Conservatives have also proposed other solutions, such as Bill C-234. The problem could be fixed by exempting fuel for farms, lifting tariffs on fertilizer, cutting red tape, and ensuring reliable and accessible shipping and access to labour. Many things are beyond our control, whether it is the weather or the geopolitical ramifications, but there is much the government can do and must do immediately to ensure that our farmers are equipped to help feed the world. In conclusion, through the Chair, I would like to address the NDP-Liberal government and say that Canada must do better. We need a plan, a concrete plan, that will provide solutions for the short, medium and long terms to help not only feed the world, but to feed us Canadians. Tough times lie ahead, and we need a leader who will bring Canadians together, finally cut through the red tape and make the decisions necessary for our country to prosper.

678 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/16/22 9:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I sometimes have the pleasure of working with my hon. colleague from Beauce, and I thank him for his comments. Once again, we agree on the broad strokes, with several nuances. Protecting our agriculture without harming it is what matters most. Above all, we must protect the sectors that are working well. I will repeat my question from earlier, and I expect a positive answer. Does my colleague believe that our supply management system, which works extremely well but has been undermined by the latest trade agreements, should be protected in the future?

95 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Jun/16/22 9:49:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, members will know that I will always agree with protecting supply management because the pandemic proved how important this system is. I believe that all my Conservative Party colleagues also support the supply management system.

37 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/16/22 9:49:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, what is really concerning is that we are dealing with an unprecedented situation where hunger and famine are being used as tools of war. It is really important for Parliament to be looking beyond our own backyard and how we might benefit. I have lots of farmers in my region who could help, but we are dealing with a much larger international crisis, with Russian disinformation and war crimes. I am asking my colleagues about their willingness to put a larger frame on this. How are we going to deal with this in an age of destabilization, with the failure of globalization and the fact that the modern norms we have trusted in the international community are not helping us deal with a war criminal like Putin? We need to have a broader, bigger picture. I am asking my colleague if can he articulate where he sees this going in an age of growing instability.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Jun/16/22 9:50:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I think that with what is happening to us right now and what is happening around the world, we all need to brainstorm together. That is why, in my conclusion, I asked for a plan for the short, medium and long terms for the development of our agriculture. I think that our country has to be self-sufficient in terms of feeding ourselves. I also think that if Canada is capable of producing more, then it is capable of sharing with the entire world and the people who need it the most, while helping them adopt these same farming practices.

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/16/22 9:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to echo the comments of my Bloc colleague. I too enjoy working with the member for Beauce and I want to acknowledge that his mastery of the English language is surpassing my mastery of his mother tongue. This past week, a number of us met with representatives from the Atlantic Grains Council, Quebec grain growers and Ontario grain growers. They supplied us with a lot of information. Some of that information basically acknowledges that grain markets for corn, wheat and soybeans are up over 200%. Given the cost of inputs, which we have talked about today, particularly fertilizer, I am going to cite a few statistics. Anhydrous ammonia is up 504%. Those of us who use it know what it means. These quotes are since June 1, 2000. UAN 28% is up 439%. Diammonium phosphate, DAP for short, is up 304%. Urea is up 297%. These are costs of fertilizer inputs, on top of the carbon tax on our fuel being up and crop protection products being up. This inflation in the cost of food is driving farm input costs. Our futures markets for grain, which are predicting the future cost of food, are also up. Is this not one of the driving forces that many parts of the world are experiencing in their food insecurity as the cost of food rises?

226 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Jun/16/22 9:52:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I really appreciate the work that my colleague does with me at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri‑Food. Indeed, we have been hearing for weeks that prices have skyrocketed internationally. Canada should at least be able to avoid being outmatched by overtaxing itself. I think it is deplorable that Canada is currently the only G7 country imposing this surcharge on fertilizers. We know that the Americans are buying fertilizer elsewhere and have little concern for this surcharge.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/16/22 9:53:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place, and it takes particular relevance as we address such significant issues as global food insecurity and the role that Canada can play in solving some of these world problems. I would like to start by sharing a few very startling facts for those who might be watching this debate. There are 181 million people globally who are at a crisis point, in terms of being food-insecure. These are people who are going hungry. In 2021, we learned that food insecurity increased globally by 20%. In 2021, there was a 20% increase. People are dying from food insecurity at a rate of more than one person every minute. That certainly is a number that should shock everyone who sees this. Further to that, there are effects of this at home, in terms of the fact that Canadians are going hungry. There are some recent reports out that suggest that a growing number, up to a quarter of Canadians, cannot afford to buy food and are facing a level of food insecurity here at home. In a very short period of time, I hope to be able to address a number of the challenges and aspects of what needs to be done. I would start by first acknowledging, as I have asked a number of questions, that food security and energy security are very tightly linked. It is absolutely essential. I know that there are some who would suggest that we can simply have this magical transition away from things like traditional oil and gas. The reality is that if we are not very careful, that will increase food insecurity at what could be an exponential rate. A very clear example, for all of the farmers who I represent and for me, being a fifth-generation farmer on our family farm, is granular fertilizer. It is made from natural gas. Energy and food security both are so tightly linked, and that has to be acknowledged in this debate. My second point is this: we have to allow Canadians to lead, to innovate and to be able to afford to lead the world in solutions that can address issues such as increasing yields here at home and ensuring that our technology, our strategies and our practices can be exported around the world. I would note, as my third point, the diversion of food commodities into energy. There is a troubling trend there. There is the reality that foodstuffs like wheat, corn and canola are being diverted into things like biofuels and ethanol. We have to be very aware that this could lead to individuals going hungry. Number four concerns global supply chains. We have to acknowledge the reality of global supply chains, and the role that Canada can and should play in ensuring that we have strong global supply chains. That includes things such as having strong trading relationships, protecting supply chains, such as in the Black Sea, for example, and being able to get Ukrainian goods to market. There is wheat in Ukraine, as I have mentioned before, but it has to be able to get to market. Five, we have to address the geopolitical reality that exists in the world and stand up to Putin and the Russian regime and the aggression that they have taken, and also address the fact that there are a whole host of geopolitical realities we are facing that are contributing to concerns surrounding global food security. I would note that there are some issues that can be very clearly addressed. A Liberal member recently introduced a bill to ban glyphosate. It is absurd. I certainly look forward to talking more extensively about that. We have heard members of my party talk about the carbon tax, fertilizer reduction mandates, the cost of fertilizer and the tariffs on pre-March 2 purchases, and costs in general. My father told me here today that he filled up our Peterbilt, which is a B-train. It cost more than $1,500 after a day of work. The fact is that we have solutions to many of the challenges that we face in terms of a higher-yield, drought-resistant crop, including incredible science in the sense of gene editing—

720 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 90