Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2022

The Economy

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, by delivering significant fiscal policy support to Canadians during the pandemic and avoiding harmful austerity policies, we have seen a rapid and resilient recovery so far.

In short, our government's economic plan is working. Canada has exceeded its goal of creating a million jobs well ahead of schedule and ahead of expectations. In fact, Canada's job recovery is among the strongest in the G7. As of December, Canada had recouped 108% of the jobs lost in the depths of the pandemic, compared with just 84% in the United States.

In addition, just yesterday, data released outlined that as of November Canada's GDP had recouped all of its pandemic losses and surpassed its prepandemic level. We will continue to do whatever it takes to ensure Canada's economic recovery leaves no one behind. We will do this by focusing on jobs and growth, and by making life more affordable for Canadians.

I look forward to working with that member to deliver affordability for all Canadians.

Infrastructure

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to be able to follow up on some questions I had of the government related to infrastructure in the context of disaster recovery in the number one riding in all of Canada, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, and the number two riding in Canada, that of Abbotsford.

Everyone in the House knows the challenges my constituents have faced, the challenges the constituents of Abbotsford have faced, the challenges the constituents of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola have faced and also the constituents of Chilliwack—Hope. Over the last couple of months, we have been working very collaboratively with the government. We send our sincere gratitude and thanks to the Minister of Public Safety. The Minister of Finance and I also had a chance to discuss some of these issues yesterday.

British Columbians are asking what the government is going to do related to the major infrastructure deficit that our province is facing as it relates to the once-in-100-years flood that we just had. Specifically, they want to know how our municipalities are going to cover the full costs. The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and I represent small, rural, mountainous communities that will have a hard time even covering their 20% contribution on some of the recovery effort.

In the Fraser Valley, the dike infrastructure was downloaded onto the municipalities. Communities like Abbotsford, Mission, the District of Kent and many indigenous nations, like the Stó:lo community, will have a very hard time funding the requisite infrastructure that we know we need and that our engineers have told us needs to be fixed to prevent yet another devastating flood. Today, we would like the government to give us an update on what it is going to do in the next budget, or foreshadow what it will do in the next budget, as it relates to these infrastructure expenditures.

The next point I would be remiss not to add relates to our agricultural sector. Throughout some of the ridings I have mentioned, many farmers are at a complete loss. They do not know what to do. They do not know how to recover. It is very difficult making sense of the business risk management programs, disaster financial assistance, contributions from the Red Cross and whether the government is working with the province through the special committee on an AgriRecovery framework, which would allow the Province of B.C. to request additional funds for the unexpected disaster we just went through.

An update on some of these measures would be very helpful for B.C., and I hope we can get some answers today.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I would gently remind the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon that Ottawa Centre is the number one riding in Canada, and I am so glad that he is here, in my riding, at this moment. In all seriousness, I want to thank him for his continued advocacy on behalf of his constituents on this matter.

We know that November's flooding had a life-altering impact on many in British Columbia, and our thoughts continue to go out to everyone affected. The severity of this event is already clear. While we still do not have final estimates of the damage, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or IBC, has estimated that the insured cost of November's floods is $515 million, the single most costly severe weather event of 2021.

Not too long ago, this would have been seen as a once-in-a-decade or a once-in-a-century type of event, but the science is clear that the impacts of climate change are real and becoming increasingly more severe. According to the IBC, of Canada's most costly years on record for natural disaster-related damages, four of the top five years occurred within the last decade. Our government knows that, in this changing environmental context, we need to not only help people build back, but also build back in a better way that creates local resiliency and protects communities for many more years to come.

That is why out government has set up a joint committee with the Province of British Columbia, co-chaired by the federal Minister of Emergency Preparedness and his provincial counterpart, Minister Farnworth. This climate disaster resilience committee, which is composed of federal and provincial ministers, is working closely together and with indigenous leadership to provide immediate and ongoing support to the people of British Columbia. This committee will collaborate to build back in a way that better protects British Columbians from future climate events, creates cleaner and healthier communities, and supports Canada's efforts in reaching our climate goals.

Work is also already under way with the province on a request for financial assistance through the disaster financial assistance arrangements, also known as DFAA. Under the DFAA, the federal government cost shares up to 90% of all eligible disaster response and recovery costs with provinces and territories. The DFAA also offers an additional 15% top-up for mitigation enhancements or innovative recovery activities that increase future resilience.

As I have previously mentioned in this House, we received an initial request from British Columbia in November. Officials are fully engaged as we await further estimates on costs from the province. I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinary generosity Canadians have shown in response to this disaster. In the aftermath of the event our government made a swift announcement that we would be matching every dollar Canadians donated to the Red Cross B.C. flood response fund. With the province's contribution, that meant that every dollar Canadians donated turned into three dollars for those most heavily impacted by November's disaster.

By the time the program ended in December, thanks to the generosity of Canadians, just under $90 million total has been raised, and I am pleased to inform my hon. colleague that the Red Cross has already distributed over $17 million in evacuation-related financial assistance to more than 7,200 households. The Red Cross continues to undertake the critical work providing recovery support to those who are the most in need.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for acknowledging that we need to make very real and very targeted investments in British Columbia right now to keep our population safe, update our infrastructure and account for these natural disasters, and we need to do so quickly.

When does the hon. member think we are going to hear something from the joint committee? Has the joint committee been granted any authority to approve spending, or does it have to report back to the respective treasury boards of both the province and the federal government?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the member's question around support for farmers. The hon. member raised that issue, and I have to say that farmers have had to deal with unique and extraordinary hardships. Our government stands with them and is committed to supporting farm families through these challenges. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is fully engaged on this issue, and I will also endeavour to bring the concerns of the member's constituents to her attention.

In recognition of the changing global climate and the realities of Canada's climate emergency, this government has further demonstrated concrete commitment to augmenting our national state of readiness and creating a culture of preparedness across the country. The creation of a dedicated emergency preparedness portfolio will help our government focus on combatting climate-related disasters and improve our overall resilience, and an ongoing review of the disaster financial assistance arrangements program will also ensure there is an updated sustainable system available to provinces and territories.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I originally asked the Minister of Agriculture what it would mean for farmers if the government restricted fertilizer use, I stressed how crucial it is for all Canadians across the country. Since then, the problem has only gotten more obvious. After all, we are talking about the people and operations producing our food and other essential supplies. It is something so critical for people in their daily lives and for the basic functioning of our entire economy, as one in six jobs relies on agriculture. However, ever since the Liberals first announced it over a year ago, they have kept everyone in the dark. Producers, industry and Canadian consumers are still waiting to get some clarity and reassurance about what they are actually going to do, or, rather, what they are not going to do.

After throwing out an open-ended announcement, will the Liberals finally rule out a restrictive approach that aggressively cuts down fertilizer use, much as what we saw in the European Union? It is a fair question, and they should be able to answer it by now. Associations and industry have been asking this for a long time, but the government will not say anything. Whenever I ask them, they all say the government has not been consulting with them. As time goes on, it seems like the government is unwilling to clear the air and it starts to feel like a bad sign.

Let us consider what is at stake and what damage can be done by a rash decision. Meyers Norris Penny worked out a projection based on the European Union modelling over the next decade for losses as a result of a significant cut to fertilizer use in Canada. Year after year, yields would drop by millions of tonnes. It could get so bad that we would have a steep decline in what we can export after filling our own domestic demand. For those working in agriculture, the sector could lose up to $10 billion in a year, for an estimated total loss of $48 billion by 2030.

No one can afford these devastating losses to a key part of our economy, especially when the federal government is already trying to bring down other high-performing industries, such as our natural resources sector. While maintaining food supply is a big enough challenge by itself, whether it is for here at home or to feed hungry populations all over the world, we can expect more problems to come along. We had a terrible drought this past year, compounded by bad years of lack of moisture in the years prior, which brought yields to lows unseen since 2007. It could happen again with future bad years.

Aside from weather conditions, the government is already pushing for a rapid expansion of biofuel production. It is going with the expectation that Canada can produce 26 million tonnes of canola by 2025, which we can definitely do, but only if we do not also remove the tool that makes it possible.

In the Order Paper question I submitted, the response that came back said that the government is specifically looking to reduce emissions from nitrogen-based fertilizers. One of the fundamental problems with that, which it is unwilling to recognize or admit, is that canola and corn, some of the main crops used for biofuels, are some of the biggest-consuming crops of nitrogen-based fertilizers to grow the bushels to get the yields that we need to meet demand. By creating more demand, we will need the same crops for food and fuel supply together, and we definitely cannot afford to sabotage our own yields by taking on a fertilizer-usage reduction, which is what we saw in the European Union. Unfortunately, the minister has not said much about this. She quoted an informal survey of a dozen professionals, who in the end actually agreed with what farmers and industry are already saying.

It has been clear for far too long that the Liberals do not recognize the practical realities of producers and how the difficult decisions they have to make will impact everybody else. I challenge the Liberal government right here and right now to remove all doubt and confusion.

Can the parliamentary secretary, right here and right now, guarantee to our farmers that there will not be a restriction on the amount of fertilizer used in farming?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

In the context of extreme weather events and the global rise in temperatures, it is obviously more important than ever to preserve our land, air and waterways.

We must ensure that our farmland is healthy and productive for generations to come and, to do that, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector, which still represent roughly 10% of total emissions in Canada.

The use of fertilizer has played a major role in the success of the agricultural sector over the past decade. However, emissions associated with the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer also increased during that time. That is why, in Canada's strengthened climate plan, the government set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of fertilizer by 30% over 2020 levels by 2030.

I want to make clear that this target does not seek to reduce the use of fertilizer by 30%. Our approach seeks to reduce emissions from fertilizer, not impose a mandatory across-the-board reduction in fertilizer application rates.

Our target is ambitious but achievable. The Western Producer conducted an informal survey that asked a dozen soil-nutrient experts about this 30% target. Most of these experts agreed that the emission reduction target was achievable and would not require a reduction in fertilizer use.

If we want our agricultural and food production industries to be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable in the future, this target will have to be met. Canadian farmers are not facing this alone. We will work closely with the industry to understand the challenges that lie ahead and find out how we can achieve this target together.

We are looking at all of the solutions that could help us reduce fertilizer-related emissions while investing heavily in programs to help farmers branch out to new products and adopt sustainable practices.

We recently invested $165.7 million to expand the agricultural clean technology program, which supports the research, development and adoption of clean technologies, such as precision agriculture, that can help make fertilizer use more effective.

We invested $185 million in the living laboratories initiative, which brings together farmers, scientists and other collaborators to develop new, climate-adapted practices and technologies.

In addition, we invested $200 million in the on-farm climate action fund, which is also part of the agricultural climate solutions initiative.

We want to support the immediate adoption of nitrogen management practices and other practices that store carbon and reduce greenhouse gases right on farms.

Our top priority is supporting sustainable agriculture. We believe that the practices, innovation and expertise Canadian scientists and farmers have already developed and implemented will improve the management of agricultural nutrients, reduce emissions and maintain the quality that Canadian agriculture is known for around the world.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, again, this shows the lack of awareness that the government has on how innovative farmers already have been. Having grown up on a grain farm, I definitely understand how that works. I have seen the farming practices evolve over the years when it comes to rotational crops and when it comes to being more efficient with how we apply fertilizer. Farmers have made those changes for years.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned extreme weather events. Yes, this last year was definitely, I would say, an extreme weather event with how dry it was, but in the region of the country that I live in, it naturally is already dry. We have already made all the adjustments that we need to make sure that we are preserving moisture in the soil. We have better farming practices. We have already improved yields, but we have also better protected the soil. The government is too afraid to recognize that farmers have made those changes themselves.

Will the member again here, today, comment and will he commit that the government will not restrict fertilizer use? Much of the European Union did. It said it was going to reduce 30% emissions as well, and it came up with a 20% fertilizer usage hard-cap reduction.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, our approach is focused on reducing fertilizer emissions and not an absolute reduction. Having said that, I challenge the member to say that farmers cannot innovate even more. If my grandparents still farmed the way they did way back then, I mean, they would not be in business today. I know farmers are innovators, and they are great at introducing new technologies.

Precision farming is actually used to reduce fertilizers. Thirty years ago, fertilizers were sprayed all over the land. It is not done like that anymore because they use precision farming, which is fertilizer at the right place, at the right time and at the right moment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)