Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, they say this Prime Minister has never met a tax he did not like. He said no to relief from GST on home heating and fuels, he said no to freezing the rising escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits, and instead of providing relief to Canadians, the Liberals are increasing the carbon tax by 25% on April 1. This Prime Minister does not understand science any better than he does the struggles of ordinary Canadians. For instance, in my riding, we have the largest concentration of greenhouses in North America. They are essential to our food security. Up to 75% of the carbon dioxide emissions can be recirculated back for essential plant growth, yet they are taxed. As most farm operations are now over 15 acres in size, by 2030, these operators will have paid another $1.3 million in carbon tax. When will this Prime Minister get the facts and stop the tax?

With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC), since 2016, and broken down by year: (a) what are the details of all funding transfers between the DFO and the GLFC, including, for each, the (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) amount, (v) type of funding or reason for the transfer; (b) which line item in the DFO's financial statements included the funds allocated to or received from the GLFC; (c) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of the DFO and how will they be listed; and (d) which of the GLFC related funding commitments in budget 2022 will be shown in the financial statements of another government department or agency, and which department or agency will each commitment be listed with?

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government continues to make Canada's credibility around the world a joke. It continues to dishonour our commitment to NATO funding, to our indigenous peoples and even to the United Nations. The international Great Lakes Fishery Commission is now on the razor's edge of collapsing, with our American friends walking away, fed up with our continued failure to honour our word. What does the government say to our American partners who have written us on this critical issue, such as members of Congress Dingell, Joyce, Kaptur, Huizenga and Grothman, as well as Senators Stabenow, Portman, Smith, Brown, Durbin, Klobuchar, Casey, Duckworth, Peters and Chuck Schumer, all reminding us of our commitment? We call upon the government to direct existing payments, already budgeted to the international commission, through Global Affairs Canada and not through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which continues to mismanage this critical file. If our word is not good, what good are we?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member lives in Winnipeg. Just south of Winnipeg, I am sure there are a number of those 5,000 typical family farms that would be very near where he lives. What does he have to say to those operators, those family farms that he just accused of polluting through the use of fertilizer? What will he say to Canadians when those farmers are looking at a potential additional $150,000 by the time this tripling of the carbon tax takes effect? What is going to happen to Canada's emissions as those farmers go out of business and we are importing more food? What is the price of our food going to be when this carbon tax is tripled?

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to rise and bring the voice of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place. I will be splitting my time with my hon. friend and colleague from Thornhill. Food inflation remains a top priority for Canadians from coast to coast, with almost six million people reportedly living in food-insecure homes in Canada last year. This is per Canada's Food Price Report. This number is expected to be even higher in 2022. Food inflation is impacted by a number of factors, including general inflation, supply chain issues, geopolitical situations and, of course, internal policies. General inflation in Canada has reached the highest level in decades, as the more the government spends, the more things cost. We have seen local supply chain issues caused by the global pandemic, and there are global impacts on food, especially fertilizer supply, as a result of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Yes, these events are not controlled here, but here at home, the Liberal carbon tax continues to drive up the price of all goods, along with all of the other non-pandemic-related spending that the government has chosen to do. Canada's general inflation rate is 6.9%, the highest it has been in 40 years, and food inflation has exceeded general inflation for 13 consecutive months, with food prices surpassing even the high-end predictions for 2021 to an astonishing rate of 10.3% this past September. This has led to food banks experiencing their highest level of demand in decades. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has had global impacts on food prices through trade restrictions and further supply chain interruptions. This ongoing conflict has especially affected the fertilizer market here in Canada, and more than it should have since Canada should be far more self-sufficient in nitrogen and potassium than it is. We have the national gas here to provide our nitrogen fertilizers, but not the pipelines across Canada to get the gas to eastern Canada. Railcars do some of the cross-Canada shipping of our petroleum products, which ties up and makes more expensive the option of railing potassium to eastern Canadian markets. Saskatchewan is a very large producer of potash, or potassium, but instead of using our own, we have became dependent on imports. As Russia is also the world's largest exporter of fertilizer and as trade restrictions remain in place, the shortage of fertilizer puts pressure on global prices. However, instead of helping farmers, the government has demonized our farmers' use of fertilizer. The introduction of a fertilizer emissions reduction target of 30% could not have come at a worse time, and this unscientific scheme is not based on any measured baseline data. Progress could not even be directly measured, because there is no base to measure from, nor a way of directly measuring emissions. Canadian farmers are already outproducing the world on sustainability and continue to improve their environmental record, as they are already up to 70% more efficient in fertilizer use than many other countries. Russia is also the largest gas exporter in the world, meaning that sanctions imposed on Russia by Canada and a number of other countries have placed pressure on other suppliers of gas, once again driving prices up. Higher fuel costs affect food prices in every step of our food value chain, as suppliers are forced to pass along their increased costs at every step up the chain and then, of course, ultimately to consumers. The government's carbon tax, the subject of today's opposition motion, is yet another factor driving up food costs across Canada, as its exemptions are currently limited to only on-farm fuels and it is still applied in many other areas of the food supply chain. Not only does the carbon tax directly raise costs for Canadians, but it has far-reaching indirect effects as well, especially if the government insists on tripling it. It is important to note that a large part of inflation, and certainly the carbon tax, is the result of internal policies over which the government has control. In my remaining time, I want to spend some time on an important issue that has been a priority for me since I first became a member of Parliament. It is the role that grocery retailers play in our inflationary challenges. On the one end, our food supply chain continues to be crippled by the government's cash grab carbon tax, and we are certainly hearing about that in the House today. However, let us look at the other end of this equation and at the role of the large grocery retailers that complete the double whammy of the carbon tax. The government has the opportunity to address the crisis of food inflation and lower food costs, namely through the implementation of a grocer code of conduct. Farmers are often called the first step in the food value chain. However, the “field to fork” expression is a bit of a misnomer. Farmers have many suppliers, so they are not the first step in the value chain. These suppliers, in turn, incur the carbon tax on many of their products and of course on the transportation of their products to the farm, and these costs are once again passed along to the farmer. Food manufacturers and processors are next, and then on to food distribution, which is either retail or the food service industry. The carbon tax is incurred at each step of this chain, eventually ending on the consumer's lap. There are two seemingly contradictory statements being bandied about these days. The first is that retailers are seeing record profits. The counter-argument from the industry is that retailer margins have not changed in percentage terms throughout the pandemic. Both these statements can be true, as retail volumes have increased during the pandemic since consumers shopped more retail versus the food service that supplies the restaurants and institutional trade. The carbon tax, which applies to the delivery of farm inputs and outputs and to the transportation all along the food chain, has increased costs, so retailers, maintaining their margins in percentage terms, which is what they are claiming, are applying this margin to a higher cost from suppliers and to higher volumes generated by the change in the market from consumers shopping retail versus food service. Of course, their profits then set records. However, there is an opportunity before us that could accomplish many goals if we get it right. When properly implemented, it would result in increased profits for food manufacturers because of fair trading practices and reduced administrative costs in attempting to comply with the many “rules” applied by retailers. It would also lead to reduced costs for the retailers themselves in administering all these programs allegedly used as profit centres. Most importantly, it would reduce food costs for consumers. Right now, shelf listing fees, fines for short or late deliveries and a host of other administrative exercises are adding costs that eventually end with the consumer paying a higher price. There is certainly an international precedent for such a solution, as the U.K., Ireland and Australia have all gone down this road with varying degrees of success. Initially, retailers were afraid imposing a code would lead to a reduction in the number of retailers with gross sales meeting the threshold for the application of the code. However, the U.K., since fixing its original attempts, has seen more retailers succeed. At the outset of the program, only 10 retailers reached the threshold of dollar value throughput, but now 14 are large enough, meaning that the code has not driven consolidation. In addition, and this is very important as well, it would allow the 10,000 independent grocers, which are crucial to so many parts of rural Canada, to be treated on par with the big five that control 85% of the grocery retail trade. In conclusion, an appropriately structured code results in lower consumer prices and fairer trading practices within the value chain. Punishing farmers with an unscientific fertilizer emission target and applying a carbon tax to almost every step of the food value chain only serve to drive up food prices and drive more Canadians to the food bank.

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Newfoundland is very familiar with the fact that the federal government and the provincial governments have different jurisdictions, and with the trepidation that any federal government would have over imposing a tax on the provinces. However, this would certainly help the majority of provinces where there is a federal program and would go a long way in showing leadership. Removing the punishing carbon tax from our food value chain would set the example, and I do not think those provinces would continue with this.

Madam Speaker, as stated earlier, we are not opposed to having incentives or disincentives placed on large emitters where it makes sense, where there are options and where there are other practices that can lead to a reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon tax is not that plan across the food value chain. That is the point of our opposition motion today. All the carbon tax does is raise food prices for consumers. Of the 2% of greenhouse gas emissions that Canada adds to the world, 8% come from our agriculture. The motion would not impact our climate change targets, and the carbon tax, as it is being presently administered across Canada, will not impact Canada's goals. Our neighbour to the south has been meeting and will be meeting its climate targets, and there is no carbon tax there. Our agricultural and food systems are so interrelated that we are being made uncompetitive by the additional environmental charge here that is not helping us address our climate targets.

Madam Speaker, if I recall, it was a Conservative government that put the truth and reconciliation recommendations in place, and it is the Liberal government that has not followed through. I will gladly support clean drinking water for every first nation, but there were 1.5 million trips to the food bank by Canadians. Every single Canadian eats. This opposition day motion would reduce the cost of food and would not hinder our environmental targets. I will support ensuring that every Canadian eats.

Mr. Speaker, everything the Liberal government touches gets broken. Fifty-four million dollars was spent on an ArriveCAN app that could have been built for $250,000. There were 10,000 people wrongly sent into quarantine because of this faulty app, which caused them mental duress and financial hardship. Inflation, house prices, rent, groceries, overdoses and violent crime are all at generational highs. Will the Liberals stop trying to build back better and leave things as they found them?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to bring the voice of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, and today it is to put some comments on the record regarding Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Before I get into the content of the bill, I want to begin by thanking the women and men who wear the uniform to keep Canadians safe. Canadians expect accountability. They expect law and order, and they expect strong oversight mechanisms to ensure that there is no abuse of power. We recognize that our RCMP and CBSA agents put themselves in the possibility of harm's way every time they put on the uniform. Canada and the U.S. share the world's longest, undefended border, and we as Canadians share this border with a country that owns more firearms than they have citizens. This is part of a different culture and a different history, and that is not the subject of today's debate. The point I am making is that the CBSA has received much attention recently, and we look to them for their role in preventing gun violence, particularly in our cities. We ask that they address the issue of criminals smuggling illegal guns into this country, and we know that this activity is often also tied up with drug smuggling and trafficking. We ask that these people, along with law enforcement, put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe, and for that I want to thank them. Let us look at the content of the bill. The legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, to the public complaints and review commission, which I will refer to as the PCRC. Under its new name, the commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the CBSA. The bill's goal is to ensure that all of Canada's law enforcement agencies have an oversight body. What I really do like about the bill is that it would codify timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to the PCRC. We have all heard of complaints that went into the civilian body, but then there was no response back. The reports, reviews, recommendations, and the information sharing between the RCMP and the PCRC, and the CBSA and the PCRC would be mandated and codified. The bill also stipulates annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response. This would be a further mechanism to ensure action follows complaints. As well, the bill would mandate reporting of disaggregated race-based data, provides for public education and provides for a statutory framework to govern the CBSA responses to serious incidents. By way of some further background, the bill was introduced in the 43rd Parliament as Bill C-3. However, it did not pass second reading. It was introduced very late in the session and died on the Order Paper when that unnecessary election was called. In the 42nd Parliament, it was known as Bill C-98, but it died awaiting a vote in the Senate. I want to put on the record that Conservatives have supported this legislation at each stage. I also want to note that this legislation appears to be straightforward and meets its objectives, but the newly created PCRC can only recommend disciplinary action and cannot enforce it. There will still need to be a further step as this process unfolds. Conservatives believe in upholding the dignity of our borders and ensuring that our Canadian Border Services Agency is properly resourced, both in manpower and equipment. The civilian review commission should improve oversight and help the CBSA be an even more effective agency in its duties and functions, similar to the function of the renamed Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. As I stated earlier, Canadians expect effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies, but what is disappointing is the length of time it has taken to get this done. The Liberals promised oversight in the 2015 election, then squandered two Parliaments in fulfilling their promise. Now, one month before Parliament breaks, the House is supposed to hurry up and pass this legislation. We are supportive, as we have been in the past, but we will review it, and we will do our job in this place. We have always stood for the security of Canadians and will continue to do so. I live in Leamington, only 45 minutes away from the Windsor-Detroit border. I have crossed that border to the U.S. numerous times. By and large, I have had many good experiences and professional interactions with CBSA staff as I returned to Canada either from travelling to the U.S. or abroad, or just from an evening or afternoon in Detroit. However, several years ago, while my four daughters were still quite young, my wife did not have such a pleasant experience. It was some time ago, in 2003 during the SARS outbreak, so there are similarities to today's times. My brother-in-law, a Canadian, was working in St. Louis at the time and flew to Detroit to come back to Canada to renew his status paperwork. While my wife answered the questions asked by the CBSA agent, the agent assumed some information regarding my brother-in-law’s citizenship that he had not confirmed through questioning. Frustrated once he learned of his error, he swore at my young children, and literally threw the paperwork of six people into the van. I was not there; I was tied up elsewhere, so my wife took my four young daughters, a credit to her, into the U.S. to pick Darrell up. This agent now demanded that the paperwork be returned in a different order. If the PCRC would have been in existence then, it would have heard from us, and this officer’s conduct would have been reported. This is a relatively minor incident in the scheme of things that could have happened, but there is a role for this oversight agency. This situation occurred 19 years ago, so some time has gone by, but I know that it has been seven years since an idea for this oversight body was introduced in this place. The government campaigned on that promise. Let us hope it will not take 19 years to get this promise to Canadians completed. Yesterday, in the House, we debated Bill S-4, a bill that enjoyed support at second reading on all sides of the aisle. Bill S-4 was Bill C-23 in the last Parliament, which also did not see the light of day in this chamber, but I digress. It seems that good bills do not receive good priority for this file in this place, but we will leave that for another day. Bill S-4 asks to improve the efficiency of our court system through bringing in the use of video and other changes to address the huge backlog of cases. This backlog, of course, was exacerbated by the pandemic. We have all heard the expression “justice delayed is justice denied”, and the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court has codified this expression. My purpose is not to redebate yesterday’s work in this chamber. Bill S-4 is off to committee, and hopefully it will be improved through amendments. Then hopefully it will be quickly returned to this place for third reading. My point in raising Bill S-4 is that during debate, several statistics were tabled during the interventions and I found them troubling. There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. There were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than in 2015. There were 788 homicides in Canada last year. There were 611 in 2015, a 29% increase. As we have heard before, there has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015 and a 61% increase in reported sexual assaults since 2015. Police-reported hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years, and 31,000 Canadians lost their lives to overdose between 2016 and 2022. There have been 7,169 deaths from opioid overdose in Canada in 2021 alone, and 21 people are dying per day from overdoses. Before the pandemic, it was 11. Thus far, this is the record of the government when it comes to keeping Canadians safe over the past seven years. At their core, Bill S-4 and Bill C-20 are pieces of legislation that take us in the right direction. This cannot happen soon enough. I hope they now receive the priority they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. On the positive side, as I mentioned in my remarks, the timelines for responses are codified in the legislation, and those specific timelines will, I am sure, be examined at committee when this piece of legislation goes there. However, there is an open question: Will the government act on the very legislation that it has put in place? The government has shown at other times that it has not. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to put pressure on the government to hold it to account. That is our job as the loyal opposition, and we will continue to do our job until we form government. Then it will become our responsibility to ensure that proper oversight of our federal agencies sees the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, numerous speakers on our side of the aisle have indicated that we support sending this piece of legislation to committee. We will be seeking amendments to improve it, but we do support it. As I said in my closing remarks, it is a step in the right direction. I share the member's concern about speed. The bill was announced seven years ago, and unfortunately we are again debating it here now. However, we certainly all want to see it go through all the steps both here and in the other place and become the law of the land.

Madam Speaker, much of my hon. colleague's speech dealt with aspects of the bill that, as has been earlier indicated, the Conservatives will support. What he did not address was the balance, or more properly the imbalance, between attention to victims and attention to perpetrators. I believe he comes from a riding similar to mine that is more rural in aspect, certainly with large rural areas, and my phone is blowing up this morning with what has gone with the most recent attempt of the government to further inhibit the rights of legal firearms owners. I am wondering if the member could comment as to why the government seems to err on the side of perpetrators and target law-abiding firearms owners as opposed to really going after the criminals in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I will pay tribute to my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac, because I am going to quote a statistic shortly. As has been signalled, Conservatives support the measures that go to modernizing our system, decreasing the backlogs and speeding up justice. However, we are concerned about the lack of focus on victims. As my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac illustrated, recidivism is up 25%. In the earlier intervention we heard that violent crime is up 32%. Why is this happening when all of us have it in our best interest to reduce recidivism and violent crime?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure this morning to continue to put some thoughts on the record regarding the fall economic statement implementation act. Seven years ago, the current government inherited a balanced budget and a robust economy, but instead of maintaining balance or even paying down some debt, let us consider that for a moment, perhaps to prepare for the unknown, such as a pandemic or an unexpected war, it immediately began to add more spending, took the government finances back into a deficit and again started to add to the debt. Then came the COVID–19 pandemic, which required additional spending. We supported those early programs. However, of the half a trillion dollars, yes, $500 billion, of added debt by the current government, $200 billion was not pandemic-related. Program spending by the current government is now 30% above prepandemic levels. We now have structural deficits presently embedded in our finances, and of course the more that the government spends, the more things cost. When the current government came to power seven years ago, it promised transparency. Do members remember “sunny ways”? This is what its own Parliamentary Budget Officer had to say on the transparency of the fall economic statement: In this year’s FES, the Government identified $14.2 billion in new measures without providing specific details on this spending.... This lack of transparency presents challenges for parliamentarians and the public in scrutinizing the Government’s spending plans, particularly given the magnitude of measures, $14.2 billion—the largest amount announced without specific details since the 2016 [FES]. On top of all the other spending already outlined, the $20 billion, the current government is now asking the House for a $14.2 billion blank cheque. Are these sunny ways? Hardly. We will not be supporting this. In my remaining time, I want to spend some time on one issue that is not addressed in the fall economic statement. Last week, I had a series of eight meetings with my own constituents. The primary issue I heard from them was the rising cost of living, particularly the costs of food, fuel and housing. Those are the main things I heard, and in particular, food. Last month, as we are all now aware, there were 1.5 million visits to food banks, that in the country of Canada, a country that is considered a breadbasket. The FES missed an opportunity to address an issue that has the potential to lower food costs, namely the status of the implementation of a grocery code of conduct. First, we have heard much in statements in the media today about two seemingly contradictory statements, record grocery retailer profits and the counter-argument from industry that retailer margins have not changed in percentage terms through the pandemic. Both statements can be true, as retail volumes have increased during the pandemic as consumers have shopped more retail versus the food service that supplies the restaurant trade and institutional trade. Second, the carbon tax, along with other issues, that is applied to the delivery of farm inputs and outputs, and to transportation all up and down the food chain, has increased costs for suppliers. Retailers maintaining their margins in percentage terms are applying this margin to a higher cost of goods from suppliers and to higher volumes generated by the change in market from consumers. However, there is an opportunity for us to accomplish many goals if we get it right. What do I mean by getting it right? We can increase profits for food manufacturers and processors because of fair trading practices, and we can reduce the administration costs in attempting to comply with the many “rules” applied by retailers in an updated code of conduct. We can reduce administration costs for retailers in all these programs that are allegedly used as profit centres, but most importantly we can reduce consumer food costs. Right now, shelf listing fees, fines for short or late deliveries and a host of other administrative exercises are adding costs that eventually the consumer pays. The U.K., Ireland and Australia have all gone down this road of a grocery code of conduct. Retailers were afraid that imposing a code would lead to a reduction in the number of retailers with gross sales meeting the threshold for application of the code. The U.K., since fixing its original voluntary attempts, has seen more retailers. It started with 10 and now has 14 retailers meeting the threshold dollar value, so the code has not driven consolidation there. In conclusion, an appropriately structured code results in lower consumer prices and fairer trading practices within the value chain. In addition, it allows 10,000 independent grocers, who are so crucial for rural parts of our country, to be treated on par with the big five that control 85% of the grocery retailer trade. The fall economic statement missed an opportunity to advance this issue for Canadians. Instead, the statement adds more government spending, which would only lead to higher inflation over time and the hurting of our most vulnerable citizens. With that I will conclude, and I look forward to questions.

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, this side of the House did support the returning of tax to constituents. However, when I opened my speech yesterday, I said that the fall economic statement presented an opportunity for the government to make hard decisions. It did not. Now consumers and Canadians have to make those hard decisions. In the end, the more the government spends, the more things cost. It is as simple as that.

Madam Speaker, the member points to a series of behaviours that occur in so many other issues. There is talk. There are promises. There are announcements. So often there is not follow-through. I can think of another announcement in the spring budget, the funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which is seemingly not being honoured. There is a whole host of things that are talked about where there is not the follow-through by the government for real results for Canadians, particularly now given the cost-of-living increases that Canadians are seeing and the 1.5 million trips to the food bank. The government is not taking the opportunities it has to lower real costs for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, on the surface, that would seem like a plausible argument. What I did not hear was the books of our oil and gas companies being brought to the fore in the six years previous due to the policies of the Liberal government. Record profits are not only being incurred in different parts of the country; that is how a market works. Is there a role for the government to step in there? That is what the House is to decide.

Madam Speaker, I cannot see why. Millions of Canadians suffer from age-related macular degeneration, or AMD. This presently incurable disease starts with a loss of visual acuity in the centre of the eye. Eventually, the condition almost always results in blindness. Many of our constituents and even members of our own families are affected, but now there are emerging treatment options. For instance, a new non-invasive device from a Canadian company has been clinically tested in Canada, and it offered positive results to all who were actively treated. It is less expensive than the present course of treatment, which only slows AMD's progression. There are other innovations on the horizon as well. Unfortunately, Health Canada has been studying and delaying the approval of this life-changing treatment for almost two years. I am not questioning the thoroughness or importance of Health Canada's work. However, I am saying that procrastination and delays are not acceptable when our loved ones are going blind. I cannot see why.

Madam Speaker, a month ago I asked the current government to give Canadian families a break and cancel the tripling of the carbon tax, which is applied to every step in the transportation of food production, processing and manufacturing. The response from the Minister of Environment was that a carbon tax stops hurricanes. The reality is that, with the storms we now face, there are many things outside of our control, but one option we do have control over is crippling taxation. Will the minister support Canada's food security by immediately cancelling the tripling of the carbon tax?

Mr. Speaker, you might rule me out of order, because I wish to ask a question on the fall economic statement. Finally, I did hear a comment at the end of the speech that listed a few topics broadly that were listed. In an earlier exchange with the member for Calgary Shepard, he asked a question of the previous member. One of those things the hon. member across the way did not list was the $14.2-billion blank cheque. I have yet to hear what that is about. How is that not incendiary spending, as identified by the Parliamentary Budget Officer? I would like to know whether that is a measured response, which a previous speaker so described.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber and bring the voices of the constituents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, and it is an honour to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act. The Conservative Party had two asks going into the fall economic statement process. One was to stop the tax increases and have no new taxes, which includes cancelling all of the planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. The other was to stop the spending and have no new spending, and ensure that any new spending by ministers or ministries is offset by equivalent savings found elsewhere. We need to cut the wasteful spending and stop the inflationary deficits that drive up the cost of living. Of course, none of our demands were met in the fall economic statement, and for that reason, the Conservatives, me included, will not be supporting it. I know that is a shock to the members opposite. The cost of government spending is the main driver of the increasing cost of living. As stated by a colleague in an earlier speech this week, Canadians now have to make tough decisions. Why? It is because the government did not make tough decisions. Of course, the pandemic required extra spending. The Conservatives knew that and supported the early programs. However, $200 billion of it, almost half of the $500 billion of added debt, was not pandemic-related. Program spending by the government is now 30% above prepandemic levels. It is amazing. Last week I was in my riding and hosted a series of coffee meetings over two days to hear from constituents. I was just talking about the rising cost of living, and that is exactly what I heard from my constituents. Over and over again, the rising costs of everything, particularly food, fuel and housing, were highlighted. Last month it was reported that there was 11.4% food inflation. This month the rising cost of food is reported as being 10.7%. That is what Canadians are facing when they make a trip to the grocery store. While rising inflation is causing pain for Canadian families in their everyday lives, it has boosted the tax revenues of the government. One would think there would have been an opportunity in the fall economic statement to bring some fiscal responsibility to budgeting. I am not an economist, but let me share some thoughts from some respected voices on the fall economic statement. I will begin with Douglas Porter and others from BMO Capital Markets, who stated: Less than half of this year’s revenue windfall will make it through to an improved bottom line. Moreover, the double-whammy of slower (or no) growth and rising interest rates will limit flexibility into 2023.... [T]he boost to government finances from higher inflation is temporary. Eventually, costs do catch up to the run-up in prices, and revenues get crimped by the economic slowdown. Accordingly, after a nice run of better-than-expected fiscal outcomes, Ottawa’s finances are expected to turn more challenging next year. Will the government look ahead and plan accordingly? Obviously from prepandemic times we know that it did not.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP coalition's policies and resulting higher interest rates have fanned the flames for this cost of living wildfire. Given the debt that the Prime Minister has accumulated, how can Canadians now trust him to control spending? After all, does one trust the arsonist to put out the fire? We cannot inflate our way out of this mess, out of debt either, because that just erodes the purchasing power of Canadians. The only positive action is to unlock investment from the private sector. Will the Prime Minister stop his new spending, and no more taxes?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to bring the voices from Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. When I started farming professionally some three and a half decades ago, I am not sure if I would have personally supported a measure like the one we are debating today. I would have thought it unnecessary. I live on a home farm, and I am a third-generation farmer. When my father began farming, everyone was either from the farm, had an uncle on the farm or had a personal farm connection. Today, it is much different. We often hear of the 80-20 scenario, where 80% of a product or service is delivered by just 20% of a population, those who are providing that service. With food production, farming in particular, if we go back and look at census data, 2% of our Canadian population are farmers. Under the census, that means they produce more than 7,000 dollars' worth of farmed goods per year. In reality, half of 1% of our farmers produce 85% of the production grown on our farms. If we look in the chamber, there are 338 members. With table officers and others, there are around 400 people on a full day. The means two people would be the represented population. I do celebrate this day and the opportunity to speak because it provides us an opportunity to educate people and talk about local food. More importantly, we can talk about the whole food chain. I want to credit Senator Black for his leadership in the Senate and my colleague from Perth—Wellington for shepherding it through this chamber. I also want to credit Anita Stewart from Wellington County who pioneered the first Food Day. The member for Perth—Wellington said in his speech about a month ago, “Since that first Food Day in 2003, it has indeed grown into a wonderful celebration of the food our farmers grow and the food that all Canadians enjoy every single day, whether at their kitchen tables or at restaurant tables across the country.” I add my voice to that celebration and that encouragement of local production. I live in a part of the world where we have access to fresh fruits and vegetables produced locally almost 10 months, or even more than 10 months, a year, depending on the vegetable, because of our innovative greenhouse sector. Our roadside markets are plentiful, with direct lines from the producer to the consumer, which is great. However, for much of Canada, roadside markets are not accessible all year round, especially in the winter. We all know winter is coming. Canada is a trading nation. We produce so many good foods, but our coffee production and our orange juice production are not top-notch. We do not have access to it and, as Canadians, we cannot eat all the wheat, canola or pork we produce. We are a trading nation. We rely on food chain systems, both here in Canada, for our own domestic production, be it at our kitchen tables or at restaurants, and with our international trade. I wanted to say that to lead into three points today. The first is that this day offers us an opportunity to enhance food literacy to our general population. We rely on this agri-food value chain to feed us year-round, and because, as I shared earlier, such a small percentage of our population has a true connection to the farm, food literacy has dropped in Canada. This gives us an opportunity to describe how complex our food system is. Given that it is so complex, and given the times we are in, food is becoming more expensive. September's food inflation rate, year over year, increased 11.4%, and that is growing. Here in Canada compared to much of the world, we are still lucky as Canadians. In 2020, 11% of our disposable income was spent on food. In 2021, in calculations by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, it was 10.7%. They declare that day one day earlier, on February 8, 2022, when the average Canadian has spent their percentage of disposable income to purchase all the food they needed for the year. I suspect that will be much later in 2023. That is unfortunate for many low-income Canadians. Why are food costs rising? I can share that the food inflation rate has certainly outstripped general inflation, and yes, the commodity markets are strong. A lot of crops that are negotiated in price relative to the strong commodity markets have also risen at the farm gate. The costs to our farmers have outstripped the prices they have received at the field. Fertilizer tariffs and shipping costs have sky rocketed. There is an exemption for on-farm gas and diesel, but there is the carbon tax and everything else. There is carbon tax when it is shipped to the farm and on the barns being heated, and the grain is still being dried this year. I would implore this House to pass Bill C-234. I had the opportunity to speak to it earlier. Make no mistake. Farmers are conservationists. The fact they need an exemption so they can compete with the rest of the world and reduce the cost of producing food is not a reflection of their ability as conservationists. I could spend a whole 10 minutes just talking about the advances that our farm community has made on that. I want to touch on another cost driver, labour, which is affecting every sector of our economy. I hear that from our farm community. I want to celebrate the fact that Canada has a temporary foreign worker program. It is critical to so much of our farming sector and is also of great benefit to the host nations from where many of these valuable workers have come. It is one of our best foreign aid mechanisms, and many parts of the world are jealous of this opportunity. Again, I could spend 10 minutes just on that. Another cost driver is obviously the borrowing costs to finance assets and the growing cost of crops, which is another thing our farmers are facing. Farmers are often called the first step in our food value chain. This leads me to the third and final point that I wish to make today. We often hear our food system being described as field to fork, but that is a bit of a misnomer. Farmers are not the first step in our food chain. I note that the bill's title refers to establishing a national food day, not a national farming day. I think it is rightfully titled. As farmers, we have so many suppliers that supply us with our crop inputs and everything from steel to bearings to financing. We are not the first step. I want to acknowledge that. In this food value chain we have in Canada, and actually much of the world, food manufacturers and processors are next, and then it is on to food distribution, whether it be the retail or the food service mechanisms. We hear two statements being bandied about, “record retailer profits” and “retailer margins are not changing much in percentage terms”, throughout the pandemic. Both those things have been in the news recently. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. Because the pandemic has shifted, somehow much of the food supply has come to our bodies more through home cooking and the grocery retail chains. The volumes being sold through retail have increased and food service has diminished. With increased volumes, even though the margins of our retailers have remained roughly steady within a certain range, between 2% and 4%, the profits have actually increased. Today we are in a state in Canada where we have an opportunity to address some of these mechanisms in our food value chain if we get it right. What I am talking about is a grocery code of conduct. I had two excellent meetings last week with Restaurants Canada and Food and Beverage Canada. They mentioned labour availability as being their number one issue and talked about the temporary foreign worker program, but that is not where I want to go. Restaurants are telling me the very same things our farmers are experiencing. We have all gone out and noticed that the cost of restaurant meals has also climbed, but their margins are also shrinking because of the cost structures they are experiencing. A grocery code of conduct actually gives us the opportunity to address some of the behaviours in the food chain, the fines, levies, listing fees, and the like, all those mechanisms that the value of our food production is being transferred from the food processors and manufacturers to the retailers. Manufacturers are spending on administrative costs and keeping an eye on that. Food retailers are spending on administrative costs in that mechanism. The United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia have all gone down the road of a grocery code of conduct and have actually experienced greater profits throughout the transmission chain of food, the value chain. Most importantly, food costs for consumers have relatively dropped because costs have been stripped out of that system. That is the big point I want to make. Canada has an opportunity to get that right. I want to mention the 10,000 independent grocers across this country that are very critical to our rural fabric. I know my time is quickly running out. I want to thank the sponsor of this bill. I would just note that we have inflationary pressures driving up costs. We have an opportunity through a grocer code of conduct to address these inflationary costs.

Mr. Speaker, last night was Halloween, but for too many Canadian families, what is scary is a trip to the grocery store. When Canadians talk about bread-and-butter issues, they talk about bread being up 17% and butter being up 14% in the past year alone. Even apples for treat bags this year are up 17%, with record-smashing uptake at food banks across the country. Why? It is because farmers’ costs are going through the roof, yet while Canadians are already struggling to feed themselves, the NDP and Liberal coalition will triple the carbon tax while adding fertilizer mandates. A Conservative government will repeal these and get out of our farmers’ way so that we can grow our own affordable food. The government’s high energy taxes and proposed fertilizer restrictions will only drive food production abroad and undermine Canada’s food security. Did we not learn how irresponsible it is to rely on others from our COVID experience? Canadians cannot afford this costly coalition between the NDP and the Liberal government. Trick or treat?

Madam Speaker, it is not often I agree with my colleagues across the way, but on this issue I do. The hon. member was asked what he would replace our constitutional monarchy with. The U.S. News, and the last time I checked the U.S. was a republic, combined with a UN world report, surveyed countries with 76 attributes and determined that seven out of the 10 top-lived countries in the world had constitutional monarchies. If a constitutional monarchy is good for seven of the top 10, why would my hon. colleague from the Bloc want to go away from that system, which seems to work not only in Canada but in other places?

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard opened by saying that he was, perhaps, a bit too curmudgeonly, and that he was not around in 1971, so I do not know where that puts me, because I was around in 1971, so I may be on the other side of that. What we do share is that we are not burdened with a legal education, although one of my four daughters reminds me that perhaps I would benefit from her education, which is of a legal background. My question is more along the lines of the dynamic of federal-provincial relations. This act is addressing federally appointed judges and similar things. He mentioned at one point that perhaps provincial jurisdictions could benefit or could look at this, yet we also have the dynamic right now where provincial jurisdictions are pushing back on a federal initiative of a gun buyback. Could he comment on that dynamic between the federal government and the provinces with legislation and on the adaptability or the lack of suitability on different pieces of legislation?

Madam Speaker, in the earlier debate, the hon. member referenced questions that colleagues from this side of the House were asking as to the status of the consultations and the actual number of asks from provinces. I come much more from an ag background, where there is a long-standing tradition where ag is a shared jurisdiction. We have a long-standing tradition of a 60-40 cost share on much of the programming. When we are dealing with the area of health, where does jurisdiction come into it? What is the agreed upon cost share? We hear the provinces asking for more money. That is where the relevance comes from the question of the interaction between the federal government and the provinces. I will ask the question again. What are the provinces telling the government about dental health care?

Mr. Speaker, when asked, farmers have stated that their number one worry is not the market, it is not the weather, it is not international trade; it is the policies of the federal government. The delivery of seeds and plants to the farm incurs the carbon tax. The manufacture and delivery of fertilizer incurs the carbon tax. The delivery of farm products to market incurs the carbon tax. The government's plan for the carbon tax is to triple it. In a time of 10% food inflation, will this government finally give Canadian families a break and cancel this planned tax increase?

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member say that he hopes that inflation does not continue. What is this government's plan? It is proposing a one-off payment in response to high inflation. I am glad that the government is now acknowledging high inflation. If this continues, is the plan a continued series of one-off payments? What is the government's plan to address core inflation? I, too, agree and hope that inflation drops, but is this a long-term plan to address inflation?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's speech, and I appreciated that I heard, twice, his use of the phrase “rein in spending”. Earlier in this debate, I asked our colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre what the government's plan was going forward and whether it was more of a series of one-off payments in response to inflation. I am encouraged to hear the beginnings of a plan through the phrase of “rein in spending”. Where would my hon. colleague envision this reining in of spending occurring?

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in this chamber and represent the voices of those in Chatham-Kent—Leamington, particularly in this solemn hour and on this day of tribute. I have only known one sovereign. In fact, over 90% of Canadians have only known one sovereign: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Last night, before boarding the plane to come to Ottawa, I stopped and visited with my parents. They are in their late eighties, so they are part of the 10% cohort who has known two monarchs. They reflected back on the death of King George VI and on the coronation of then Princess Elizabeth, and they recalled the national sadness followed by the pageantry of coronation. I think many of us are also feeling some of those emotions today. As a child in school, I recall singing God Save the Queen, and that anthem concludes with the following statement: Long to reign over us, God save the Queen. Well, long did she reign, the longest in the history of the British monarchy. While intuitively we all knew she was not immortal and her death would come, it still comes as a shock, as most of us have always lived with the assumption she was a permanent fixture in our lives. Her Majesty knew she was not immortal, as she requested the help of her creator and acknowledged her service to him as she took the oath of service to country and Commonwealth at the beginning of her reign almost 70 years ago. This legacy of service, of duty, is what has come to define her reign. While in theory holding ultimate power, she fully understood her role in a constitutional monarchy, where the true power lies in a country's people. In practice, by wielding ceremonial power through leadership by example, she actually had enormous influence, providing the example we should all follow. Her Majesty's calm and assured voice, her measured tone and her dignified demeanor remained a beacon of stability through many turbulent times in her country, within the Commonwealth, in this world and, yes, even within her own family. Her Majesty was a wife, a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother, and it is to her family, the royal family, that I wish to convey my sincerest condolences. Today we hear much about freedom, but freedom should never be separated from duty. Today we hear much about our rights, but our rights should never be separated from our responsibilities. Our freedoms do not stand in isolation without the duty of a country's citizens to serve. Freedom is not free. Our individual rights are not sustained or sustainable unless we acknowledge and respect our responsibilities to each other and to the collective whole. Our Constitution is based on this relationship of freedom and duty, of individual rights and responsibilities. Her Majesty's life of devotion, service to country and duty to the Commonwealth inspired many and embodied the intertwined codependency of freedom and duty, of rights and responsibilities and of service and humility. It was therefore an honour this past summer for me, as a member of Parliament, to commemorate the 70th anniversary of her reign, her Platinum Jubilee, by bestowing platinum pins for service to community, or, said another way, for responsibilities demonstrated to the whole, on residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington who have emulated the life of service exemplified by Her Majesty. It is these very citizens whose voices I have the privilege of bringing to this chamber. May Her Majesty rest in peace and may she rise in glory. Long live the King, King Charles III. May God bless Canada.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian and every human being should have access to food. On June 8, I attended the retirement of Jim Cornelius, the accomplished executive director of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank for over 24 years, five of which overlapped my time with that organization. Established in 1983, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank has a footprint that can be seen all across Canada in growing projects in farm fields. Local community groups, farmers and church groups dedicate the proceeds of a crop, which are matched by additional Canadian donors and then matched again by the federal government, to efforts to alleviate hunger. My own riding has several such growing projects in Chatham, Leamington, Wheatley, Blenheim and South Buxton, with over 220 across Canada. Collectively, we were making progress toward ending hunger, but conflicts and war have reversed those improvements. Now, with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the world needs more Canadian grain, more Canadian energy and more Canadian expertise in food production. A recent U.S. president stated, “The world needs more Canada.” I agree. Our own security is enhanced when global destabilization does not happen because of global food and energy insecurity.

With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the design failure related to the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) does the WDBA accept the independent engineering and geotechnical evidence that the failure was a design-related one, and, if not, why; (b) did the WDBA refuse the industry standard of accessing the professional performance insurance they were required to have, and, if so, why; (c) was the WDBA's contract provided to Amico to correct the design failure awarded through a sole source process, and, if so, why was a competitive bid process not used; (d) did the WDBA or CIMA+ amend the specifications for the remedial work to eliminate the long runs if the failures were due to construction practice and not a design error, and, if so, why was such a decision made; and (e) were the original failures caused by a construction practice involving pumping pressure, and, if so, what is the WDBA's explanation for why the remedial work, which used the same pumping pressures, did not fail in the same manner as the original design?

With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) did the WDBA consider Farhad Ganji to be in a conflict of interest by managing the CIMA+ review of the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project as a WDBA employee and former CIMA+ employee; (b) who made the determination to have Farhad Ganji be a lead in the review; (c) to whom did Farhad Ganji report, and to whom did that person report to at WDBA for the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project; (d) what is the position of the WDBA regarding the independent engineering findings of Kinectrics, Geotherm and Brierly that the Schedule 40 pipe was the wrong pipe to be specified for this project; (e) if the WDBA disagrees with the findings, what evidence is the disagreement based on; and (f) what differences are there between the original work specifications and the second specifications to address the need to conform to the required specifications of Hydro One?

With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) did WDBA sole source a contract with AMICO for the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project with an entirely different design criteria that involved the conduit fill specifications changing from 200 metres to 70 metres, and, if so, why; (b) how many days in April of 2022 was the project at a standstill, and why did the standstill occur; (c) what were the total costs incurred by the WDBA associated with the delay, including an itemized breakdown of the costs; (d) did WDBA procure their own independent engineering review of the project in addition to the Kinectric, Geotherm and Brierly reports, and, if not, why; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the details, including the findings of the review; (f) did the WDBA seek recourse against CIMA+ related to the project failures and, if not, why; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what are the details of the recourse; (h) for the failures on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, what were the terms; and (i) what are the details of all changes in executive leadership at the WDBA that have occurred since January 1, 2022, including any change in either personnel or in the leadership structure?

With regard to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA) and the Hydro One Conduit Project: (a) on what date did the current WDBA CEO, Bryce Phillips, become aware of the Kinectrics report on the Hydro One Conduit Project; (b) what was the project's injection failure; (c) did WDBA grant CIMA+ full authority over the role of designer and of contract administrator on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, and, if so, (i) who made that decision, (ii) why was that decision made; (d) did the WDBA grant CIMA+ the permission to participate in the discussions with the insurer on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, and, if so, (i) who made that decision, (ii) why was that decision made; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, how does the WDBA address concerns that such discussions could jeopardize the availability of insurer proceeds; and (f) was CIMA+ allowed to compromise on the scope of the insurance on the WDBA Hydro One Conduit Project, and, if so, why?

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. I wish I were speaking more about Canadian food security this evening than speaking about global food insecurity. Prior to being elected, I farmed for most of my life. I have spent a lot of time in agricultural organizations and I also worked with an internationally focused NGO. It has been mentioned here tonight, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, which deals with hunger, and so, with that background, I have spent a lot of time working for food and talking and thinking about it. If I had to title my remarks today, I would title them with the axiom that we hear at the farm, “nothing cures high prices like high prices”, and its corollary, “nothing cures low prices like low prices”. Ag pundits often cite this expression when they are talking describing volatile agricultural markets, but we might ask ourselves what this has to do with global food insecurity and why should Canadians care. Embedded in that expression actually lies one of the solutions to this crisis that we are facing, albeit it is a bit more of a longer-term solution, but respecting and understanding market dynamics is something we all need to collectively do. This works if governments and we collectively respect how markets work. High prices of anything, food and any product, encourage more production and increase supply. Low prices encourage demand and eventually high prices. I will come back to this in a moment but with the corollary that governments understand this dynamic. Let me speak for a second to why Canadians should care. Obviously, we are all experiencing increasing grocery prices and grocery food. Canada is a rich country. On average, we spend about 10% of our disposable income on the cost of food, which is much lower than in many parts of the world. However, the vulnerable in our own society feel the brunt more than many of us. We know that many problems do not respect international borders. We are dealing with greenhouse gases and climate. That does not respect the border. As we have learned, travel mandates and things like that have not slowed the spread of COVID-19. So too the effects of global hunger in other parts of the world will affect us. I am reminded that World War II was not declared in 1939 when Hitler crossed boundaries into Poland and Czechoslovakia. World War II came from a conflation of various regional conflicts. Whenever in any part of the world a population's average caloric daily intake falls below 1,800 calories, there is civil unrest, food riots, hunger, all sorts of other problems. Let us think back to the Arab Spring. It is important to put a few stats on the record. Global food hunger was actually decreasing through 2014. It has been mentioned that conflict around the world has actually been driving those numbers up. It was down to under 600 million people. The latest figures put it at over 800 million, with 50 million people actually facing acute starvation. There are two issues. As I mentioned in a question earlier, the price and availability of food require both short-term and longer-term responses. To address food instability, food needs to be available. My former employer worked in this space. Certainly, in a short-term response, we do need to supply cash. The Canadian Foodgrains Bank led Canada to delinking our food aid back in 2008, which is a good thing, but what we need to do far more is to drive the cost of food down as well. For that, our Canadian agriculture needs all of the tools at its disposal, certainly fertilizer and access to fertilizer. Restrictions on the use needs to be balanced with our environmental responsibility, but we cannot be putting policies in place today that impact Canadians' ability to produce food. The carbon tax has been talked about as well. As I said, high prices cure high prices. More supply is attracted by high prices. For the world's poor, we absolutely need to put more food onto the market, which will lower the cost, which is the second possibility. Let us put our collective efforts toward those aims.

Mr. Chair, would my colleague agree with the statement that world hunger is being induced by two causes? The one we think of right now is the lack of availability of food and the situation in Ukraine causing or exacerbating that, but the second thing that is causing hunger around the world, particularly in the global south, is simply the cost of food. It is becoming unaffordable in so many places. I wonder if he has a comment on that dynamic.

Mr. Chair, yes, I absolutely will. I enjoy the work my hon. colleague and I do together at the agriculture committee. We need both short-term and long-term responses. There is a call for an immediate cash injection, and I support those efforts. From a longer-term perspective, Canada has expertise. In my time at the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, I often spoke, and it was referenced earlier by the member for Beauport—Limoilou, about the analogy of fishing and giving a person a fish compared to teaching a person how to fish to reduce the need for further fish down the road. The third stool, which is not often talked about, is access to the pond. I believe the hon. member's question concerns that third component. We need to not only teach and provide Canadian expertise in other parts of the world, but also give access to the pond so they can fish. There is that seed bank of Kharkiv, as well as other efforts. As Canadians, we have to develop the infrastructure in other parts of the world, and that is something that can absolutely be supported.

Mr. Chair, some things we, in primary agriculture in Canada, take for granted are actually not very well known in other parts of the world. What we consider as second nature for conservation and agriculture, such as crop rotation and keeping the ground covered with residue, are not well known in places such as Ethiopia. It was the first to plow the land, and has been for 7,000 years, so there is a massive culture change required to bring that about. I will give honours to the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, as its curriculum has been adopted by the Ethiopian government, and it is incorporating that into its agriculture because of the draughts it experiences. It is increasing its food production by adopting some things we take for granted. I was in Tanzania and saw some simple things such as scattering corn versus planting it in a row. Things we take for granted are things we can export and teach.

Mr. Chair, next week I will give a member's statement acknowledging Jim Cornelius and his role. Yes, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, with a footprint across Canada in the agricultural community, grows food here, sells it into the market and then uses those funds to acquire food. In my remarks, I just touched on how Canada delinked our food aid to the rest of the parts of the world, so we are not destroying local markets when we source food to address food insecure parts of the world. We actually improve their own markets and lead to more sustainability from that perspective. That is an area in which the Canadian Foodgrains Bank led by lobbying the Canadian government back in 2008 to delink that aid. We are actually leading the world when it comes to that, certainly in our efforts in the Horn of Africa with conservation agriculture. As I said earlier, things Canadian farmers do almost by nature these days are not done by nature in other parts of the world. Certainly, that is another area the Canadian Foodgrains Bank has been a leader.

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?