Parliamentary Speeches

With regard to the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) what are the estimated costs to taxpayers associated with the new completion date; and (b) will the cost overruns, those identified and the others yet to be determined, lengthen the time it takes for Canadian taxpayers to be reimbursed through the collection of tolls, will the toll charges be increased to cover the additional costs, or both?

With regard to the letter sent to the Minister of Health by the office of the Member from Chatham-Kent—Leamington in December 2023, and the minister's mandate letter of July 2023: (a) why were representatives from Health Canada (HC) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) not made available to attend the CFIA Food Security Roundtable in Chatham-Kent, Ontario on March 24, 2024; and (b) what are the current best practices for industry and various levels of government, including HC, in the event of a pathogenic or contamination crisis, when importing and exporting Canadian greenhouse and mushroom products to and from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement and the European Union?

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to expand a bit more on a question I asked on February 8. I ended that opportunity with a request of the government to axe the carbon tax. Let me first set the context of the situation. Food inflation at the time had been running higher than general inflation for quite some time. It has moderated a bit, but people sometimes confuse a lower inflation rate with dropping prices. A lower inflation rate means that food prices are rising more slowly, but they are still rising. Food bank visits at the time were at about two million per month. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, who has testified numerous times at committee, predicted another one million new visitors to food banks in 2024. The last number I heard was that we are sitting at 2.3 million visits to the food banks per month. Dr. Charlebois also predicted that food prices for the average family of four would rise $701 this year. The situation we are facing now is the same as when I asked the question. I stated in the premise of the question that both the amount and the type of food Canadians were buying were decreasing. What does that mean? It actually means that the carbon tax is working. The carbon tax is designed by nature to change people's behaviour. That is its purpose. I think about taxes on smoking and tobacco products and taxes on alcohol. They are designed to curb people's behaviour, and that is actually what makes the minister of ECCC's response so bizarre. I asked him to axe the tax, and he responded as follows: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Conservative member for Regina—Lewvan, who recognized that there is absolutely no data to support any link between the price on pollution and higher grocery pricing. In fact, there is no pricing on pollution in the United States of America, and its grocery prices are the same as we have here in Canada. He said that there is simply no link between pricing on pollution and higher grocery prices. First of all, the minister completely mis-characterized the member for Regina—Lewvan's comments. I was in the committee room when the member stated them, and what he stated was in response to the fact that third party data has yet to come up with a single global number for the impact of carbon pricing on our food systems, because we have so many different food value chains that the carbon tax impacts differently. My history is as a processed vegetable grower. There are many greenhouse growers in my riding. There are fresh vegetables and processed vegetables. Even those two simple systems, which are but small examples in our food value chain, have the carbon price impact their inputs differently. Therefore the statement is taken completely out of context. The carbon price is so interwoven in our systems that it is hard to tease out one number, but make no mistake: The carbon tax is driving food prices higher. It is embedded in our grocery prices. I will close with this point. The minister stated that there is no food price difference between Canada and the U.S. I live in Leamington, very near the Detroit-Windsor border. I have talked to colleagues who live between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, Sarnia and Port Huron, and all along the 49th parallel in western Canada. Canadians come back into Canada with American groceries. Americans are not buying groceries in Canada and taking them back to the U.S. I am not going to state that every single food price is cheaper in the U.S. than in Canada, but the majority are, and that is why Canadians are bringing groceries back. The price on carbon has to go, especially on our food system.

That is misinformation, indeed, Madam Speaker. I would invite my hon. colleague to fill the galleries of this hallowed chamber with the farmers who support the carbon tax. I have yet to meet one. The member referenced the farmers in his rebuttal to me. Let me bring up Highline Mushrooms, which is headquartered in my riding. I raised it in my question on February 8. It competes directly with mushroom farms right across the border in Michigan. There is no exemption for mushroom farms, none. They compete head to head. Where does the cost go? It goes to the consumer. The member mentioned the greenhouse industry. By 2030, the greenhouse industry will pay another quarter of a billion dollars in carbon taxes. Where does the hon. member believe that cost goes? That is at a partial exemption. The carbon tax is embedded into our food systems. Yes, on-farm diesel and gasoline are exempted. The rest of the costs are not. None—

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Today I am rising to address budget 2024. A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. This budget is, again, a “tax more and spend even more” budget. It is this government's ninth budget, or more correctly, eighth budget, since it did not bother coming to this chamber during the pandemic. It just kept spending. I do not personally claim to be a financial expert, but I have run and have been part of businesses. I have borrowed funds, and I have been expected to pay them back. I have also had the privilege to be involved with and chair several organizations, so I have had the experience of being accountable to others for their money and for stewarding organizations to their collective goals. Responsible stewardship of one's own funds and, even more importantly, of others' funds, leads to growth and prosperity of one's business, one's organization, or, as we are discussing today, one's country. Please do not take my word for it on this budget that it is evidence of insanity. Let us look at what others have to say. Across the country, many people are sounding the alarm bells over the budget. Aaron Wudrick and Jon Hartley from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute state that the growth expectations and projections for Canada are “an anemic 1.2%” for Canada versus 2.7% for the U.S., largely driven by declines in the level of business investment. The OECD supports this severe prognosis as it projects that Canada will have the lowest real per capita GDP growth among advanced economies between now and 2060. Our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that economic growth will remain “sluggish through 2024” due to restrictive monetary policy resulting from rising budgetary deficits. Furthermore, Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, states that the math simply does not add up on the expectation that the federal public service will shrink due to natural attrition by 5,000 FTEs over four years. He says that the Liberals have made too many promises, pledged too many things and made too many announcements for that to even have a shred of credibility. He says that we can expect the public service to grow, not shrink. Here is another perspective: The former Liberal Bank of Canada governor David Dodge has warned that he believes that this budget will be the worst since 1982, and I will not say who was in this chamber then. Canada will not reach par growth with other developed countries until 2060. Why is that? It is because this government's out-of-control spending has created an economic black hole that we will not be able to dig out of for 36 years, according to others' words. Again, members need not take my word for it. Let us move to a more recent Bank of Canada representative's statement. Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, noted, in a recent speech in Halifax, “You know those signs that say 'In an emergency, break the glass?' Well, it's time to break the glass.” She cited the lagging Canadian productivity rates as one of the contributing factors. She went on to say that one of Canada's main issues dragging down our productivity rates is the lack of business investment. While business investment has declined in Canada since 2014, in other countries, including the U.S., it has continued to grow. As a result, Canada's GDP per hour worked, the key measure of productivity growth, is among the lowest in the OECD. This budget will only continue this trend, as it does not incent business investment. Another Bank of Canada guy, Tiff Macklem, our present governor, agrees and states that this budget has not significantly changed the government's fiscal path and it is unlikely to affect the government's macroeconomic trajectory in the near term. Why is there all of this discussion about economic growth? Why is it important? Should we not just focus on helping people? Economic growth is what allows a government to responsibly and sustainably deliver social programming. Irresponsible fiscal management is exactly what jeopardizes a government's ability to maintain a strong social safety net and create the fiscal conditions for Canadians to thrive, in mainly low, predictable inflation and lower interest rates. Even the often touted future Liberal leader, Mark Carney, stated that there is not enough focus on the net economic growth in this budget. Former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau, in his book related to the Prime Minister, would routinely announce bigger numbers for more spending because bigger numbers sound good. I agree that bigger numbers sound good within one's own bank account, but not so much when they add to the public debt. Former Liberal Finance Minister John Manley said that, while the Bank of Canada was trying to press on the brakes of inflation with higher interest rates, the Prime Minister was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with his spending, which had ballooned interest rates in the first place. The Prime Minister seems hell-bent on destroying the economic fabric of this nation for his own political gain, with no regard for the future generations he is fiscally handcuffing. He refuses to listen to reason, and here is the main point of my speech, he refuses to even listen to his fellow Liberals. He has added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. It now stands at $1.255 trillion, and there is no plan to bring that in balance or to control inflationary deficits. Doug Porter, a chief economist with the Bank of Montreal, put it best when, in describing the value of growth, he cautioned that higher government spending is perhaps not where we want to see that growth. However, what does budget 2024 do? It includes $40 billion in new spending, which will continue to drive up the cost of goods we buy and the interest rates we pay. This year, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are forcing Canadians to spend $54 billion just to service his debt. That is the same amount that the GST brings in in government revenues. Sometimes, when we talk about millions and billions, and debt and deficits, it is hard for us to comprehend what that means in our everyday lives. Let us think about it this way: The GST has now become the DST. Instead of the GST raising funds for social programming, every single cent of it now goes to service the Prime Minister's debt. The goods and services tax has become the debt servicing tax. It is these very deficits and debts that have contributed to higher inflation and the resulting higher interest rates necessary to try to tap down inflation. According to Scotiabank, the Bank of Canada would have only had to raise interest rates to 3% if government spending had not stoked inflation, meaning that rates are a full 2% higher than they need to be. Why is this important? The Liberal government's mismanagement has directly affected the lives of Canadians. Housing costs have doubled, as have mortgages and rents. The Financial Post reports that 3.4 million Canadians will renew their mortgages by 2025, and a total of $900 billion in mortgages will need to be renewed in the next three years. More Canadians are going to have to sacrifice the basic necessities, such as food or clothing, to afford their rent or mortgage payments. In 2015, the Liberals were elected on the promise of small and temporary deficits, less than $10 billion per year. They were elected on the promise of stable inflation and low interest rates forever. They were elected on the promise of sunny ways. Do members remember? After nine long years, it is clear the Prime Minister is definitely not worth the cost, and the budget does nothing to solve the problems that Canadians face. Despite all the negativity that I have referenced in this speech, largely voiced by Liberals and independent officials, I do have hope. I have hope in Canadians because we have come back from disasters like this before, and we can do it again. After World War II, many families had suffered personal loss, and many soldiers either did not come home or came home wounded, but many came home after rescuing democracy and set to rescuing our economy, which was heavily indebted after the war effort. Record government surpluses that followed the war addressed the debt and a long period of economic prosperity followed. Today, there is also hope on the horizon. A Conservative government would axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. We would build the homes, not more bureaucracy. We would also cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. Under a Conservative government, my children and grandchildren would know that, if they worked hard, home ownership would be a reality. It is their home, our home, my home. Let us bring it home.

Mr. Speaker, the government has a long track record of announcements of budgets, etc. Often that leads to more spending, but it does not lead to the good outcomes. Every family and every business knows that they have to make priorities and have to sacrifice some things, even though they might be good measures, for long-term health and to bring about balance. This is what the government has not done. It has been phenomenal at photo ops and announcing good intentions. I am a numbers guy. I come from business. What do the numbers say? The numbers tell me we are spending $54 billion now on servicing a debt built on good intentions and poor outcomes. We have ballooned the public service. There are so many places where priority decisions need to have been made, and the government has not done that. It is the very people the government purports to help who are being hurt the most.

Mr. Speaker, I am a Conservative. I believe the market mechanism is the most efficient way of transferring the values of goods and services, but markets only work when there is a balance of power. I come from the agriculture sector, but that accounts for a whole host of sectors. The best way to have proper levels of profit, which drive further innovation, is having a functioning market system that incents competition. Sometimes we do not have that in this country, given our size. We have oligopolies, oligopsonies and monopolies, and I will not get into all the rest of it. However, there are structures needed to keep a functioning market going. We need to do more work in some areas on that in the country, particularly in the sector I come from, which is agriculture and food.

Mr. Speaker, I was at breakfast this morning with members of the insurance industry, who outlined exactly their view of this pharmacare program. They said that the monies committed just in this budget alone would provide the full formulary for all the drugs missing by those not covered under other drug plans. They then outlined all of the risks of people dropping their other plans and switching to a public plan. The dollars are going to go into the public purse as opposed to actually helping the people who do not have coverage. If the definition of deplorable is handing the government a balanced budget when it took power, I will take deplorable every day.

Mr. Speaker, this past week I attended the Canadian Produce Marketing Association's annual meeting and trade show in Vancouver. The fruit and vegetable industry gathered to engage in effective ways they can continue to feed the nation and supply Canadians with healthy, nutritious food for their families. I was proud to see the number, quality and quantity of exhibitors from Chatham-Kent—Leamington front and centre at the show, but I also heard about the severe challenges the industry is facing, about how the Prime Minister's carbon tax is resulting in higher food costs and about the profound ramifications of the Liberal plastics ban, which will decrease our access to fresh produce but increase the cost and amount of food waste. Every person I spoke to was adamant that Canadians want an election and a new government. When will the Prime Minister step down, axe the tax, scrap the plastics ban and allow Conservatives to restore common sense to this country?

Madam Speaker, after the release of the tax-and-spend budget this week, everyone knows that the NDP-Liberal government, after nine long years, and the Prime Minister are just not worth the cost. Bill C-234 was to provide some desperately needed relief for our farmers who produce food for Canadians. That bill passed this chamber. Then the Prime Minister bullied the senators into gutting that bill and leaving Canadians with higher costs. When will the Prime Minister call for a vote on the original bill or call a carbon tax election?

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward a petition to the attention of the chamber. It has been spearheaded by the St. Michael's Catholic Women's League, based out of Ridgetown, though many other Canadians have signed it. The petitioners want to draw attention to the fact that the depiction of sexual violence and access to it, particular for young people, is far too easy in this country. It is not protected by any effective age verification methods, so they want to make the House fully aware that this is an important health and public safety concern. Therefore, they are encouraging us to adopt Bill S-210, which would protect young persons from exposure to pornography.

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Prime Minister continues to demonstrate that he is not worth the cost. The government has added more to the national debt than all previous prime ministers combined. Now a leading economist has stated that interest rate cuts are being delayed because of massive government overspending. Will the Prime Minister cap government spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule that finds one dollar of savings for every dollar of new spending so that interest rates come down and people can stay in their homes?

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said that the cost was going to go up by less than a penny a gallon. He did not reference whether that was an American gallon, which is 3.785 litres, or whether it was a Canadian gallon, which is 4.54 litres. I will note that the increase translates to 3.3¢, which is less than either of those two numbers. In a few moments, he is going to step into his lobby, interrupt his stream of, using his own language, bull, and members can fill in the blank that he puts into Hansard, and eat a lunch. That lunch will have been produced by folks on farms like mine that have received fertilizer inputs. It has been trucked here to the distribution centre. Would he please enlighten the chamber as to how much of the carbon tax refund will be accounted for in his lunch?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber as I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012. This bill would, of course, amend Part I of the Canada Labour Code and the industrial board regulations to prohibit the use of replacement workers, and improve the process of protecting against the immediate and serious danger to public health and safety during a legal strike or lockout. More specifically, the bill would prohibit employers from using new hires or contractors to replace striking workers. In addition, they also could not use members of the very same bargaining unit that was on strike or in a lockout position. There are two exceptions provided for in the bill. First, employers would be able to use those replacement workers in the strike or lockdown if it was necessary to protect life, health or safety; protect against destruction or damage to the employer's property or premises; or to protect against serious environmental damage affecting those premises. Second, employers could use employees within the bargaining unit to prevent that same list of circumstances that I just outlined. When I commute to Ottawa, I fly in to and out of Windsor. My flight path almost always takes me, depending on which way the wind blows, over the new battery plant being built in Windsor, the Stellantis plant. In fact, on Friday, a few days ago, I toured one of the buildings of this new plant with the leader of the official opposition and my friend, the member for Essex. This building was being erected by a local third-generation, family-owned construction company, Rosati, with a strong, unionized, industrious local workforce. I find it a bit ironic that we are debating this legislation today, Bill C-58, when the government committed $15 billion of Canadian taxpayer funds for a battery plant that is hiring foreign replacement workers. We can make the argument that this is not the very same worker. The point is that this is $15 billion of taxpayer funds. That is going to cost every family in Canada $1,000, while leaving our union workers out in the cold. We can debate the semantics of whether that is a replacement worker or not. I also find it ironic that this legislation would not ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces, but this legislation is not being extended to the public sector unions. In those situations, the federal government is a party to the negotiation process. Is that not a bit curious? Last November, we also learned that the Liberals are allowing companies like NextStar and Northvolt to bring in hundreds of foreign workers to help build electric vehicles in Windsor and Quebec. Not surprisingly, the government has received major pushback from our unions on this. Sean Strickland, the executive director from Canada's Building Trades Unions, has called the situation unconscionable. He said that bringing in 900 foreign workers is well beyond the standards his organization has ever seen. Conservatives will always stand up for Canadian workers. In fact, we tabled a motion in November at the House's government operations committee to compel the government to be transparent with Canadians once and for all, and publish the contracts for the two battery plant deals, as well as the three others that have received a promise of federal subsidies. Of course, Liberal members on the committee objected. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle compared this situation to shareholders demanding to hold a company's CEO accountable. By shareholders here, of course we mean the Canadian taxpayers. By the company's CEO, we mean the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, “foreign replacement workers coming to Canada, thanks to taxpayer subsidies, is of interest not just to the workers in the area but to every single Canadian family whose tax bill is underwriting this.” A further example of taxpayers underwriting government overspending is, of course, the arrive scam app. It gave a $20-million contract to GC Strategies, a two-person IT firm, though it might be four people but that does not really matter, which does no actual IT work. The government cannot confirm how much the company has received. We have learned that GC Strategies has received a quarter of a billion dollars in consulting contracts since 2015. Why did the Prime Minister not go out and hire another 600 border guards to address the car theft we are experiencing, or the import of handguns or drugs from across the border? That would have been $60 billion far better spent. It has never been more clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. I am a Conservative, so I believe that the market mechanism is the most efficient means by which to transfer the value of goods and services. Services include things like the labour that is required in almost every sector of our economy. However, markets only function best and are sustainable over time when there is a balance of power across the negotiating table where these goods and services are being established. Too much power on one side or the other distorts the process, leads to unfair outcomes and is not sustainable over time. Collective bargaining is one such structure that has developed over time to bring some balance to the negotiating table. It is obviously used in many sectors of our economy. Prior to being elected, I served and participated in a form of such bargaining on behalf of processing vegetable producers in annual negotiations with processors to establish pre-plant contracts for the terms and conditions of sale for a particular vegetable crop each and every season. Do members know what? We did not always agree. Then, a strike or a lockout really was not an option for either the processors or the growers as it is Mother Nature who dictates, through the seasonality of our Canadian climate, when the crops need to be planted and harvested. The certainty of a pre-plant contract was vital for both processors and producers so that they were assured of a supply for the processors and of the opportunity of a fair return for the producers. Therefore, an alternate form of dispute resolution needed to be found in the event of contract negotiations not being agreed upon by the pre-approved deadline. For many years, the industry used the final offer selection arbitration process as this dispute settling mechanism and, as unpleasant as any arbitration ever is, the system worked and worked well for many years for several reasons. The first is that it was fair. Second, it worked well because it drove good negotiations, which I believe is the goal of all processes to establish fair values, be it for a tomato crop or for an hourly wage. In the event that two parties to a contract talk could not agree by a specified predetermined time, they flipped final offers. At that time, both parties submitted their final offer to an arbitrator or to a panel of arbitrators of all the outstanding disputed items in the contract. Some time after a period of conciliation or mediation, an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators had to pick, and here is the key, one party's position in its entirety. They could not “split the baby in half”. Herein lies the beauty of the system. If either party submitted an unreasonable or indefensible position, even on one particular aspect of the contract, it risked the arbitrator picking the other party's position. Therefore, in effect, the final offer selection process drives good negotiations to settle at the table where the best agreements are always made, rather than risk an arbitration process. Let me be clear. Canadian workers have the right to collectively bargain and to determine fair value for their work, and it is inevitable that not all such bargaining situations will end in an immediate agreement. Bill C-58 sets out one option in the event that a strike situation occurs. Of course, unions will argue that the option for replacement workers tips the balance of power too much toward the employers, while employers will state that the lack of such an option will lengthen strikes and jeopardize so much of the critical facets of our economy, thus hurting the Canadian public. In another setting, I have personally experienced a different option: final offer arbitration. That has worked to settle disputes and has allowed crops to be planted and harvested on time without disrupting or losing a season. Improved labour relations should be the goal of any and every government, and having good labour relations is ultimately what is best for our country, for our workers and for our employers. I look forward to the continuation of the debate to see if Bill C-58 is the right tool in the right circumstances. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, what I enjoy about this place is that we have the opportunity to debate. I have listened to speeches today and actually gone back to previous days and read through other speeches, and I am still learning about the nuances of the particular sector. As I explained, I have had experience in an agriculture setting, where deadlines were imposed by a force that growers and processors both acknowledged, so there was a process developed to address that. On final offer arbitration, I am glad the member opposite is so familiar with it. I have the opportunity to meet with many groups, and not just from agriculture, as they come into my office. I have talked with labour unions and all sorts. What I am exploring here and listening for throughout the debate is something that no one has yet told me, which is how the final offer arbitration process is an unfair process to either the labour side or the employer side. That is the beauty of it, that it actually drives a good negotiation. Arbitration is always unpleasant, as are strikes and lockouts.

Mr. Speaker, the answer, short and simple, is yes. I have had locals and different unions in my office and asked them that very question. I explained the arbitration process to them; some were familiar with it and some were not. I have asked them the question of whether that would work in their situation. In full transparency, the arbitration process was actually removed from the industry I spent 20 years in, and not at the behest of the growers. It was actually removed at the behest of the processors. In this situation, they would be in the employer role, whereas I collectively bargained on behalf of producers.

Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot answer that question, because where I am right now is in listening mode. I have two ears and one mouth. I exercised the mouth for a full 10 minutes and am now using my two ears to try to listen and understand the various positions. The question is speculative as to what might happen in the future, but I am still listening to the debate and will determine exactly what my response will be to the question when it is put before us.

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax on food is working against Canadians by decreasing both the amount and the type of food they buy. Visits to food banks are at record highs, with over two million visits, and just think of the new records we are going to set once the carbon tax is quadrupled. Highline Mushrooms is in Leamington. It supplies American and Canadian retailers with mushrooms. Its American competitors do not have to pay the carbon tax, so it is forced to pass along the carbon tax cost to the Canadian consumer. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. When will he axe the tax?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians pay some of the highest cellphone rates in the world, but service is increasingly deteriorating. Complaints to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services are up 12%, and 36 breaches of the code of conduct have occurred. The petitioners are petitioning this House to call for the Government of Canada to direct the CRTC to immediately review the integrity of Canada's cellphone infrastructure and provide a quality of service report to this House by the end of February 2024. They also call for the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to undertake a study comprising telecom service providers and the industry, etc., and report back to this House on the integrity of our oversubscribed cellphone infrastructure.

With regard to the Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 (the Interim Order) on September 16, 2020: (a) does the Minister of Health require an application by the manufacturer to approve a drug that is already approved for another indication; (b) what is the total number of inquiries received by Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada about Ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID- 19; (c) how many inquiries have been made to Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada about Ivermectin for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, broken down by (i) the general public (ii) healthcare clinicians, (iii) researchers, (iv) provincial and territorial health authorities, (v) hospitals, (vi) long-term care facilities, (vii) healthcare practitioners' regulatory governing bodies, (viii) Members of provincial, territorial and federal Parliament (ix) organizations; and (d) what is the number of signatures on any petitions related to Ivermectin?

With regard to government vehicles stolen or vandalized, broken down by year since 2016 and by department, agency, crown corporation, or other government entities: (a) how many government vehicles have been (i) stolen, (ii) vandalized; and (b) what are the details of all such incidents, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) make, model, and year of the vehicle, (iii) location, (iv) type of incident (theft, vandalism), (v) description and costs associated with damage to the vehicle, (vi) if stolen, whether the vehicle was recovered, (vii) title of the individual driving or assigned to the vehicle?

Mr. Speaker, this morning, two of Canada's largest grocery retailer CEOs testified that the carbon tax applied to the farmer, the trucker, the food producer and themselves will get passed on to the consumer, contrary to one of the questions from a member across the way to my hon. colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London, that the grocery retailers are putting the carbon tax in their pockets. It is being passed on to the consumer. Would my colleague agree?

Mr. Speaker, released today, the food price report shows that a family of four is going to pay $700 more for food next year. Meanwhile, overall dollars for food spent are going down because of the cost of everything else. That means Canadians are reducing the quality or quantity, or both, of the food they buy. This morning, Walmart and the CEO of Loblaws, Galen Weston, said the carbon tax charged to the farmer, to the trucker, to the retailer and then to the food producer will get passed on to the consumer. After eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. When will the Prime Minister repeal the carbon tax on farmers, first nations and families?

Madam Speaker, I know it is not proper parliamentary procedure to bring attention to the presence or absence of a member of the chamber. However, I do not know whether I can do that to myself. I will admit that I was not in the chamber when the amendment was brought forward, so my question to the member across the way is this. The amendment deals with deferring to the PROC committee and returning a decision by December 14. Does the amendment talk about a resignation?

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is just not worth the cost. Greenfield Global operates in Chatham, buying corn and converting it to a variety of alcohols, from pharmaceuticals to biofuels. It buys corn from Canadian farmers and from nearby American farmers, who do not pay the carbon tax on fertilizer, the delivery of seed, and the delivery and drying of their corn. Could the Prime Minister explain what happens to Canadian farmers' bottom lines when they pay the carbon tax and have to compete with American farmers, who do not, in their own backyard? Why is he interfering with the so-called independent senators blocking Bill C-234?

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the substance of the matter. I asked it during question period and did not get a satisfactory answer. Greenfield Global operates in Chatham. It converts corn into alcohols, everything from the special ingredient in White Claw to biofuels and hospital-grade pharmaceutical alcohols. It buys Canadian corn and American corn. The American farmers do not pay the carbon tax, and they truck right into Chatham and compete with Canadian corn. What does the member say to the Canadian farmers trying to compete against American corn in that market in our own backyard?

Madam Speaker, I can answer very simply. Is this what Ukraine needs? Is this what it came to Canada asking for? I have not heard any speech or anything from the Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, any Ukrainian representative or any member of Parliament asking us to negotiate a carbon tax into our trade agreements. If there is evidence, I would be open to looking at it. That is not what it needs right now. It needs a reliable partner in all of the areas that Canada has expertise in and exporting a carbon tax is not one of our Canadian pieces of expertise.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to bring the voices of Chatham—Kent—Leamington to the chamber this evening and to rise to continue debating concurrence on the 10th report of the foreign affairs committee, “The Russian State's Illegal War of Aggression Against Ukraine”. Before I go on, I will tell members that I will be splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon. As this report deals with our support for Ukraine, I would like to focus on three key recommendations related to energy and food security, not only for Ukraine but also for our European allies as well. The first recommendation I will touch upon is recommendation 12: That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines as long as sanctions remain in effect. Last December, the natural resources minister said that Canada was revoking the exemptions to sanctions that allowed a Montreal company to repair turbines for the natural gas pipeline operated by the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom. The world was aghast. As background, in July, Siemens Energy was granted an exemption to Canada's sanctions against Russia to repair up to six turbines for this pipeline, which carried natural gas from Russia to Germany. The federal government defended its decision by saying that it was “calling the bluff” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Canada had accused of withholding gas exports to Europe. I question if this is the position of our ally Ukraine. Is that what it asked for when it came to the turbines? Once again, the government miscalculated at a great cost to our allies. As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan stated, “the government's decision to suspend their own sanctions is a slap in the face to the Ukrainian people in their darkest hour.” He continued by stating how important it is that we hold firm in our resolve with Russia: “If we aren't, then Russia will simply continue to escalate their pressure”. That is exactly what it has done. It has weaponized energy against the Ukrainian people and, indeed, against our European allies. Instead of standing firmly with our allies, Canada has turned its back on them in their time of need. As usual, the government has not considered the long-term consequences of its decisions by allowing Russia to manipulate the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, and this may have far-reaching consequences for global energy security, not to mention our own international relations. With its ill-thought-out policy, the government has once again sent the message to our international partners that Canada is not reliable. The world came calling for Canada's abundant supply of LNG but, in true form, the Prime Minister and his Liberal cronies shut the door on its allies. Why? We learn that, for the first time in the history of free trade negotiations, Canada is again betraying Ukraine by adding a carbon tax to our free trade agreement with Ukraine. I will ask the question again: Is this what Ukraine came to Canada asking for? The Prime Minister has the audacity to virtue signal and, in essence, double-cross Ukraine by making the carbon tax part of the agreement. Ukraine does not want our carbon tax any more than Canadians want it. That is why the Conservatives oppose the ineffective carbon tax here in Canada and in Ukraine. Ukraine is looking for a reliable trade partner, not to be force fed a carbon tax. Ukraine has not requested it and has not requested that we export the Liberal government's empty ideology. Instead, Canada should focus our trade agreements on areas in which we excel, such as agriculture, technology, LNG expertise, grain storage and the so many other areas I could list. Members remember that the Conservatives negotiated the first trade agreement with Ukraine back in 2017 and fully support free trade. The member for Dufferin—Caledon mentioned in his speech yesterday that the Liberals voted against an amendment that would allow Canadians to build munitions requirements that would allow Ukraine to win the war. The Liberals believe that by imposing their useless carbon tax, Mr. Putin will turn tail and run. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. Conservatives also proposed that we would both provide civilian nuclear technology and sell our civilian-grade uranium from Saskatchewan to power nuclear plants that would give emissions-free electricity to Ukrainians to replace bombed-out electricity plants. I guess it made too much common sense because, in true Liberal custom, they did not include that in the agreement either. Again, I reiterate that Ukraine needs Canada to be a reliable trading partner and ally. Putin has stated numerous times that Ukraine is not a nation but rather a state of Russia. Timothy David Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University, told the foreign affairs committee that the major issues in this conflict, territory, neutrality and security, have “never really been the problem.” He explained, “Putin was never actually fighting a war about NATO”; Putin was “fighting a war to destroy the Ukrainian state.” Let us go back 100 years, to the death of my great-grandparents in the Holodomor. It seems the Canadian government is hell-bent on fighting a war to destroy Canadian energy that would bring stability to Ukraine and our European allies. The current Liberal regime is determined to rob the world of reliable energy security that would, in turn, provide sustainable and clean energy sources, preventing our allies from being forced into vulnerable reliance on an authoritarian regime. We can and should contribute with sustainable clean energy solutions, reducing our allies' dependence on single suppliers and creating a more geopolitically stable international environment. We can contribute clean energy solutions that align with climate change goals and demonstrate our leadership in both energy security and environmental responsibility. That is not to mention the economic benefits this would bring to Canada in a time of skyrocketing inflation brought on by eight years of the Liberal government. The Prime Minister also stated that there was no business case for Canada to build LNG export facilities. However, in the last two years, the U.S. has built eight such facilities, partly using Canadian gas, adding value to it by liquefying it and then exporting it. At the foreign affairs committee, we continue to look at the food and fuel effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Earlier this week, Trevor Kennedy from the Business Council of Canada testified that there was, and continues to be, a business case for infrastructure to export Canadian LNG. Canada should have played a role in Ukraine's and Europe's energy security, and it should still do so. There are eight billion people in the world, and four billion of them owe their lives to the use of synthetic fertilizers, in particular, supplemental nitrogen. Nitrogen is produced from natural gas through the Haber-Bosch process. Canada should also be there for Europe and Ukraine as a fertilizer supplier, supplanting supplies from Belarus and Russia. I will come back to this point in a minute. Another recommendation I want to touch upon is recommendation 6: That the Government of Canada continue to strengthen global food security, and the role of Ukraine as one of its guarantors, and join the efforts with Ukraine on the Black Sea Grain Initiative in the Global South.... In July 2022, Ukraine's title of the breadbasket of the world was once more becoming a reality when Russia signed on to the Black Sea grain initiative. The first ships left Ukrainian ports on August 1, 2022, making over 1,000 voyages from Ukraine's Black Sea ports. Unfortunately, a year later, Russia pulled its support for the deal, and the world was once again thrust into further food insecurity. The international community watched in despair as Russia now used essential commodities to gain world domination and control, now using food as a weapon. If we were able to ship our fertilizer, our potash, to eastern Canada from Saskatchewan by rail, we would not have to rely upon Belarusian and Russian fertilizer, We would be able to step in and fill the gap to ensure food security for not only Canada but also other parts of the world. I have shared this earlier in other speeches: On my own farm, we have used more Russian and Belarusian potash over time than we have our own from Saskatchewan. We have used more imported urea from Russian sources than our Canadian-made fertilizer from western Canadian gas, because we do not have a pipeline that brings natural gas to eastern Canada. It would be possible to bring Saskatchewan potash more affordably into eastern Canada by rail if our train cars were not hauling so much crude to eastern refineries. There is much we could do. Canadians have paid the price for the Prime Minister's “all socks and no substance” policies. Now, unfortunately, the world has to pay a dear price for the same Liberal rhetoric in the form of energy and food insecurity. The foreign affairs committee made several recommendations with respect to Russia's illegal war against Ukraine. The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to stop supporting pro-Putin policies, as it did by signing off on the six turbines for Nord Stream. It is time for the Conservative common-sense plan that would turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our own people in this country. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

Madam Speaker, the member's party ran in every single election against free trade. Our record is perfectly clear. We negotiated with my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, and signed the agreement in 2017. As we have heard from other Conservative members in this House, we are solidly in favour of free trade. Where in this free trade agreement is energy security? Where is the partnership and research? Where is supply chain infrastructure and the establishment of a Canadian-Ukrainian agri-food business council? Why would the member say we are minimizing the horrific attacks? I would like to know the basis of that. We stand with the Ukrainian people. We call out the violence there. I have no idea where that comes from.

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the premise of the question put before me. Canada has so much more it could give toward energy security for Ukraine and our European allies, not only energy security, but also food security. I have raised this several times, both at committee and in this House. Eight billion people are in this world and four billion of them owe their lives to the conversion of fossil fuel, natural gas, to synthetic fertilizers. This has neither been challenged by anyone, nor has it been acknowledged other than by my Conservative colleagues. I would ask those who are opposing the conversion of natural gas to supply to our allies in the form of either energy or fertilizer for food this: Which 50% of the world's people do they not want to see live?

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a comment from another colleague across the way, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Let me state for the record that I do not enjoy the member for Winnipeg North speaking quite as much as he does, but I want to pick up on the question he asked the member, which my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George also referenced, and that is the lack of service standards. Where is the specificity? That is what Canadians are looking for, not another promise or photo op. Would the member agree?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. It is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington into this chamber. Today, I look forward to addressing the third reading of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, with the aim of protecting Canada’s national security. That is the important part. After eight years of the Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens. As usual, the government has done too little, too late, to fully protect our national economic and security interests. While Conservatives are pleased that four of our amendments were passed at committee, we are a bit bewildered as to why the Liberal-NDP government would want to water this legislation down. It defeated 10 amendments that would have made Canadian interests more fully protected by having better legislation. Why? One of the amendments defeated at committee would have modified the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state, and of course, one of the main ones there is China. The House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations presented an interim report to the last May that was entitled “A Threat to Canadian Sovereignty: National Security Dimensions of the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship”. This report offered an in-depth review of the national security implications related to the PRC’s actions. It addressed key national security topics, including the safeguarding of Canadians from foreign interference, preventing threats to Canada’s democratic institutions and elections, defending intellectual property and research, enhancing cybersecurity, combatting organized crime and money laundering, addressing global health governance threats and scrutinizing the PRC’s intentions in the Arctic. This report should serve as a warning. We need to align ourselves with our allies. The U.S. has created a committee on foreign investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is an inter-agency committee authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the U.S. and certain real estate transactions by foreign persons, to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the U.S. Have we not learned our lessons, through COVID, by allowing critical elements of our economy to be put under foreign control? A recent CBC article said, “Casey Babb, an international fellow with the Glazer Centre for Israel-China Policy and an instructor at Carleton University in Ottawa, said China uses foreign investment as a strategic tool.” I am going to quote him from the article: “They use foreign investment as a door, as an entry point, to gain access to markets, to gain access to government, to investors as well”. He goes on to say, “It's a great way to sort of use licit means to carry out illicit, or even legal but injurious, activities.” Dr. Babb also said that “China is looking to tap into [Canada's] natural resources, including oil, critical minerals and fish.” The government’s “soft on China” policy must end. One of the amendments it refused to pass sought to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada’s national security, rather than using a systematic approach. Let me provide a personal example of a sector-specific area. On our own farm in Leamington, in the years prior to the Ukraine-Russian war, we actually used more Belarusian potash on the farm than our own Canadian Saskatchewan potash. Why? Sea freight is relatively cheaper than rail freight. Why is our rail freight so expensive? Because it is being tied up hauling crude oil to eastern refineries, rather having that oil flow through an energy east pipeline, which is lowering our rail capacity for moving potash and other goods that cannot move by pipeline. Supply and demand drives up the cost of freight. In addition, 660,000 to 680,000 tonnes of nitrogen fertilizer, mainly urea, were imported pre-war into eastern and central Canada. Why is western natural gas not flowing through a pipeline to fertilizer manufacturing plants here in eastern Canada? Again, Russia's invasion of Ukraine should teach us a lesson. Where we have critical inputs in Canada, we should ensure that we have the infrastructure that could be used domestically so that we would have competitive prices vis-à-vis foreign options. Another Conservative amendment that failed to pass would have exempted non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from this national security review process to prevent an overly broad review process. This, unfortunately, sends all the wrong signals to our Five Eyes partners with whom the Liberal government's policies have been at odds. Canada needs to be seen as a reliable player in this partnership. Under the current government, this has not been the case. Canada needs to restore its trustworthy reputation with the U.K., the U.S., Australia and New Zealand so that critical intelligence information gathered by one member can be confidently shared with other members. Again, the failure of this amendment to pass sends all the wrong signals to our allies. Amendment 25.4(1.1) would have allowed the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed in whole or in part by taxpayer funding. An example of an intangible asset, which I learned in preparation for this speech, is a radio frequency filtering system for our Mounties. What is that? It is a filter circuit made up of capacitors, inductors and resistors that is used to filter the signal frequency in communication channels. What is behind this? Let us think back to 2017 when the China-based Hytera acquired a telecom company from B.C. called Norsat. This company has significant Chinese government ownership, but it does not make any money. Does that not send a signal that this should be looked at? This company significantly lost money for six years. We rightfully called for a full national security review, but the industry minister refused, and he approved the Chinese acquisition that provided the RCMP with telecom equipment. Incredibly, the federal procurement department awarded a $550,000 contract to Ontario-based Sinclair Technologies to build and maintain the radio frequency filtering system for the Mounties. By the way, Sinclair Technologies is the parent company of Norsat International. In 2022, Norsat was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the U.S., and President Biden banned it from the U.S. Just eight months later, the RCMP awarded China's Hytera subsidiary, Norsat, the contract to install telecom hardware in our RCMP communications systems. When questioned at committee, the RCMP was asked if it knew whether Hytera was charged and banned from the U.S., and the answer was “no”. How can the Liberal government continue to let such enormous security breaches happen? We all know how important lithium is for our economy. It is needed to make the batteries for our EV vehicles. In 2019, the Liberals approved the sale of Canada’s only lithium-producing mine to the China state-controlled Sinomine Resource. Every ounce of lithium mined in Canada right now goes to China, while Canadians are unable to supply lithium to our own growing electric vehicle industry, which is putting our nation in a potentially vulnerable situation. Again, in 2019, Conservatives demanded a full national security review. The “soft on China” Liberals ignored it. I guess this would explain why the NDP-Liberal coalition voted down amendment 25.3(1), which would have allowed the minister to go back and review past state-owned acquisitions through the national security review process, which would have allowed a more fulsome review. Last week, the Prime Minister did show us that the Liberal government can go back, as it adjusted the carbon tax on home heating fuel in Atlantic Canada and in rural Canada. The government demonstrated it can reverse course after identifying a mistake. That, of course, was in response to polling, not in the interests of national security. It is time for a common-sense government, a government that would allow our nation to prosper while at the same time protecting its citizens. Conservatives will continue to use our voices to ensure that both the prosperity and the protection of our citizens is defended.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We do want the investment here. Actually, some of the amendments proposed were going in the direction of allowing a less rigorous process for our Five Eyes allies, who have better processes in place than we have right now, to have reciprocity in the approval process. In addition, one of the amendments targeted only authoritarian states, which tend not to be our allies. There was differentiation, if we look at all the amendments, that allowed for a differential process depending on where a potential investment was coming from.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I both have a passion for addressing hunger. There are eight billion people in the world. Four million of them are dependent on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers made through the Haber-Bosch process from natural gas. If we had the pipeline that I referenced in my speech to eastern Canada, in the short term, we could have addressed the needs of our allies Germany and Japan, which have come calling for LNG. There will continue to be a need for infrastructure dealing particularly with natural gas. We could also do far better in addressing the world's expanding use of coal with LNG. That would do more than any carbon tax ever will, as the record of it is showing, in reducing world greenhouse gas emissions. It was predicted 10 years ago that we would reach peak coal. We set a record in coal consumption in the world last year. We are predicted to smash that record this year. Why are we not putting Canadian LNG on the world market? It is because we do not have the infrastructure to deliver it to our allies and to some of the countries still putting coal-fired plants online.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. If the member wants to know more, I can add to that. There are so many places where Canada could be leading, and we are not because we have not made the investments in our infrastructure. That needs some discerning. This legislation is a step in the right direction, but it does not do nearly enough to allow us to screen potentially helpful foreign investment to get the infrastructure we need to serve our allies, and it does not do enough to protect our mineral assets and other critical assets for advancing our economy here at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians are seeing the Liberal-NDP government for what it is. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. He continues to divide Canadians over the carbon tax. He still plans to quadruple the tax on home heating, gas and groceries for 97% of Canadians, but he decided to pause the tax for 3% of families in areas where he was plummeting in the polls and where Liberal MPs were revolting. The Liberal rural affairs minister said that if people in other regions want to have the same pause, they should elect more Liberals. Is that politics or policy? The people in Thunder Bay—Superior North did elect a Liberal MP, yet her constituents are not getting the pause. Why did she not use her influence with the Prime Minister to bring relief to her constituents? Why did the Prime Minister not allow the MP for Thunder Bay—Superior North to freely vote to take the tax off the heat and keep the heat on for her constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that no one should go hungry. There are eight billion people in this world, four billion of whom are fed by synthetic fertilizers enhancing food production. That has been acknowledged in three committees I have attended this past week. Would the member acknowledge that natural gas from our fossil fuel companies is integral to feeding half of the world's production, as acknowledged by the World Food Programme, Canadian Foodgrains Bank and others?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a literal life-and-death matter for millions of Canadians: reliable and affordable cellular service. Recently, a rural Leamington resident had to race several kilometres to get enough cellular signal strength to call the fire department. A Chatham resident's medical alert monitoring calls for his diabetic father keep failing because of no service. The survival of remote communities, such as Pelee Island, is dependent on reliable service to face the dangers of weather, fire, lake flooding, health services and so much more. After eight years, why does the broken Liberal-NDP government provide rural Ontario with the second-worst and costliest cellular service in the world? The CRTC needs to immediately review the integrity of Canada's cellular infrastructure and report to the House by the end of February 2024. Instead of dropped signals, Canadians would do better to drop the government since it is not worth the cost.

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, the Liberal MPs voted to keep the carbon tax on home heating. Yesterday, the Prime Minister flip-flopped. Why was that? It was because of polling numbers. Yesterday's announcement of the pause on the carbon tax on home heating will not help 97% of Canadians. Canadians can see this for what it is. After eight years, the current NDP-Liberal government is just not worth the cost. The common sense Conservative promise is simple: no gimmicks and no temporary measures. Will the panicking, plummeting Prime Minister admit he cares more about polls than about Canadians, and will he now axe the entire carbon tax?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I do hope that my own voice will last for the 10 minutes I have been allotted. It is an honour today, especially, because we are talking about Canada and our relationship with Ukraine, specifically about Bill C-57, which addresses a possible trade agreement enhancement. I not only bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, but I also feel an affiliation with Canadians with an ethnic heritage from Ukraine. I put myself in that latter category. All four of my grandparents were born in Ukraine, of Mennonite background, and I have personally visited Ukraine three times. I will come back to that later in my speech. Today I literally wear my heart on my sleeve, as well as on my lapel, and the colours of my suit and tie are meant to signify my solidarity with Ukraine. Conservatives were the first to successfully negotiate the current CUFTA agreement, brokered by then international trade minister, my colleague, the member for Abbotsford. With the opportunities facilitated by the 2017 CUFTA for Canadian and Ukrainian businesses, Canada-Ukraine bilateral trade reached its highest level ever in 2021, with Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalling $219 million and merchandise imports from Ukraine amounting to well over $200 million. We want to ensure that Bill C-57 is beneficial for both Ukraine and Canada, especially for Canada. At a time when our world is becoming increasingly unstable, an agreement that is favourable to both of our countries would go a long way toward bringing about much-needed stability to both countries and, of course, to our allies. We are committed to looking at this bill, with its 600 pages of text, and consulting with stakeholders from across Canada to ensure that we do get it right for the benefit of Canadians, including Ukrainian Canadians, and for Ukraine. Ukraine has always been considered one of the breadbaskets of the world. At a time when so many nations are facing food shortages and food insecurity, there is nothing we would like to see more than Ukraine's reclaiming this title once again. Ukraine has 25% of the world's topsoil. My grandparents farmed there. They came to Canada and they farmed here. I am the third generation to live on the home farm. In my home office, I have a small sample of the topsoil from both my paternal grandparents' home farms. My first visit to Ukraine was in November 2005, a year after the Orange Revolution. I distinctly remember the drive south from Kyiv with an Australian tomato grower, a friend of mine, Louis Chirnside. It is about a 700-kilometre drive to Nova Kakhovka, the city that has been in the news recently. It is built up the road from Kakhovka, “Nova” meaning new. It was built in the 1950s when the dam was built there, the dam that was recently destroyed on June 6 of this year. A few hours into the drive, we noticed a trench being dug alongside the highway to facilitate the burying of a cable of some sort. Both Louis and I, coming from farm backgrounds on opposite sides of the world, asked our driver to stop. We got out and looked into the trench, down about four feet. We were looking for the horizon line, the line between topsoil and subsoil. We could not see it. It was pure topsoil. As a youth, I remember the stories of my grandfather Epp who grew up on the banks of the Molochna River. He used to say that if a horse passed away, it could be buried standing in their backyard with six feet of topsoil over its head. He was also prone to exaggeration, a quality that was not passed down genetically. Ukraine does have the natural resources in place, if the conditions are right, to return to being the breadbasket of Europe. In July 2022, there was a glimpse of hope on the horizon when Russia signed on to the Black Sea grain initiative. The first ships left Ukrainian ports on August 1, 2022, making over 1,000 voyages from Ukraine's Black Sea ports and exporting over 32 million metric tons of Ukrainian-produced corn, wheat, sunflower oil, barley, rapeseed, soybeans and other products. It was successful for almost a year, until its termination on July 23, a year later almost to the day. Russia announced its intention to exit this agreement. Upon withdrawing from the deal, the Russian foreign ministry provided a lengthy justification for its decision that included criticisms of the implementation of the agreement and its impacts on global food security. The free world saw this for what it was: an attempt by Russia to exert its control and dominance over the rest of the global community by creating food insecurity and further dependence upon Russia. According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, ironically, Russia is also accused of having stolen nearly 6 million metric tons of Ukrainian wheat and selling it as Russian product. Interestingly, the contribution of agriculture to Russia's GDP increased by 22% from 2021 to 2022. That is according to World Bank data. I wonder how that happened. The impacts of the BSGI were global and helped to ease the world's food crisis. In addition, this initiative allowed the easing of global grain prices, which hit an all-time high in March 2022, in response to the invasion. Under the deal, the UN World Food Programme, the WFP, was able to export 80% of its wheat purchases from Ukraine, shipping over 725,000 metric tons of wheat to alleviate food insecurity in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Earlier I referenced my three personal visits to Ukraine. My first, in 2005, was actually at the invitation of a company that had established a mayonnaise and ketchup factory in Nova Kakhovka. It is called Chumak. I was invited, along with my Australian friend, Louis, and a Scotsman processing tomatoes in Turkey, as part of a benchmarking exercise to compare the growing Ukrainian tomato-processing industry to the rest of the world, to compare its competitiveness. Our host company was founded in the early 1990s, after the Berlin Wall fell and Ukraine became independent. Within a decade, many fledgling industries, once opened to capitalism, were growing rapidly, including processed tomato production. Ukrainians were reaching out to the world, to their allies for tech transfer. Canada and Ukraine in particular have two broad sectors where we should be natural partners: agriculture and agri-food and our natural resources. Let me be clear. In order for Conservatives to agree to this legislation, it would have to be reciprocally beneficial for both Canada and Ukraine. The deal would have to allow both countries to be profitable, and the advantages would have to be for both countries as well. Conservatives would like to see the exports of our abundant natural resources, such as LNG, to Europe, including Ukraine, to break the European dependence on Russian energy and the subsequent consequences for world peace. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government do not seem to agree with that sentiment. If Canada truly wanted to make an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, exporting our LNG, to replace coal and Russian-sourced energy, would top the list. When the Prime Minister took office, there were 15 proposals for natural gas export terminals on his desk. Not one has been completed. This is just one more example of the government's failure to get major projects built, when the world needs LNG. Again, I restate that Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting our LNG to break European dependence. The world needs the energy security Canada can supply. Now, more than ever in our history, the world needs Canadian LNG. Only Canada's Conservatives are focused on securing energy security for our allies and restoring the faith in our nation as a trusted partner on the world stage. As we did in 2017, Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interest of Canada and of all Canadians. By working closely with our stakeholders across the country, we will get feedback on this legislation. We believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies in all ways, including trade. Again, we will ensure that this deal is jointly beneficial. I cannot say that enough times.

Mr. Speaker, we also have the natural resources. We are not necessarily competitors of Ukraine, but we have the expertise. That is particularly where I hope this deal will go. When we look at the 600 pages, the opportunities are there for tech transfer, both in our energy fields, with our expertise there, and, in particular, in our agricultural fields. Seed banks will be traded back and forth. There is agronomics. We have world-class educational institutions in the fields of agriculture. I have personally participated in that. Processing tomatoes is a very narrow field, but we share so much grain production. We have that expertise in our industry leaders, as well as in our educational institutions. That applies equally to our fossil fuel sector.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of many refugees from Ukraine who have settled in our region. In fact, I am working with several sponsors who are looking to facilitate the next steps in the process for these hard-working folks who have come here. Some want to return, but the majority of those I have run into want to make Canada their home. As I understand it, there are some pathways that are now beginning to open up for them to extend their stay beyond their three-year visa and become citizens of Canada. Canada needs to do a better job of turning immigrants into taxpayers. The Ukrainians whom I have run into, and those whom many of my colleagues have had association with, will make phenomenal citizens and taxpayers of Canada.