Debates of June 16th, 2022

Global Food Insecurity

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, my colleague works on the foreign affairs committee with me and I know her to be very honourable. We work very well together. I would like to quote Anne Frank, who said, “Hunger is not a problem. It is an obscenity.”

When we fail to address this, that is an obscenity. The member knows as well as I do that 60% of the people who go hungry are women and children. She knows that the implications are dire, outside of hunger, in terms of violence against women, sexual abuse, and trafficking because of hunger and because of the need to work for food.

I have two questions for the member. First, when are we finally going to see the promised feminist foreign policy from the government? Second, when can we finally expect the government to get to the 0.7% of ODA that has been promised since Lester B. Pearson promised it way back when?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her passion and her important work in this regard. She and I have very similar backgrounds in international development.

In fact, our feminist international assistance policy and our national action plan on that have been in place. We are celebrating the fifth anniversary this year, and it is actually creating a change on the ground. Those very women whom the member is talking about who are the most impacted are also the solution. We need to be listening to the women in the global south and making sure that we are scaling up a lot of their efforts.

She quoted Anne Frank, and she is absolutely right. The fact is that we need to end global hunger. The sustainable development goals are central to everything that we do, including ending global hunger, because as long as someone is hungry, she cannot go to school and she is not going to be healthy. Everything else depends on ending global hunger.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I rise today to speak on a very serious and urgent issue. The world is facing a global food crisis.

Earlier this year, I shared a quote in this House from Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a professor and researcher of food distribution at Dalhousie University. He stated, “We need to be clear on the fact that by fall more than 100 million people will experience either famine or severe hunger.”

Every day we sit on the sidelines the situation continues to get worse. I am glad to see the House has finally taken this matter seriously after Canada’s Conservatives requested today’s debate. However, it is one thing to talk about this crisis and it is another thing to actually tackle it.

Approximately four-fifths of the world’s population lives in a country that is a net importer of food. Canada is one of the few remaining agricultural exporting nations on earth. We are one of the only nations with the potential to feed the world, but in order to do this, we need a political and economic environment that enables us to do so.

The reality is that Canada currently has a Liberal government that is working against Canadian agriculture. How can we produce more food when our own government is punishing farmers for doing so?

We are the only country in the G7 with a tariff on fertilizer. Canadian farmers are literally being financially punished by the carbon tax for producing and transporting food, and now the government is actually trying to discourage the purchase of Canadian ground beef with new labelling regulations. Does this sound like an environment that enables Canada to feed the world? Absolutely not. Instead of focusing on growing more food when the world needs it the most, the government is standing in the way.

As food insecurity continues to escalate because of Russia’s unjustified war on Ukraine, countries are sounding the alarm. According to reports, there are currently 26 countries implementing severe restrictions on food exports. These restrictions cover 15% of the calories traded worldwide. It is no surprise that nearly 50% of the countries depend on Russia or Ukraine for more than 30% of their wheat imports.

This is not a problem that can be solved overnight. Growing food is a seasonal task. This means that the longer we wait, the greater the impact will be in the future.

I have always said that Canada should be an agricultural superpower. We should grow our processing capacity. We should increase our transportation efficiency. We should be a leader in biotechnology. There is no reason why Canada cannot be the world’s most reliable, high-quality supplier of agricultural goods in the world.

The global food crisis will impact some nations more than others. However, no one will escape the pain. Less developed nations will lose access to food and developed nations will pay more to obtain food.

As fertilizer prices continue to reach record highs, farmers are paying the price. The price of food increases when the cost to produce it increases. The most significant increase in production costs is fertilizer. However, industrial fertilizer is one of the only reasons we can feed the world today. Without fertilizer, yields would not be able to keep up with the growing population.

Unfortunately, farmers across the world can no longer afford fertilizer and are now reducing their usage. As a result, food production will continue to decrease.

I hope the government understands that the more it restricts fertilizer, the more it restricts food production. The government needs to wake up to the reality before us.

Let me be frank. The world desperately needs more food. Canada can either sit by as the world starves, or step up and feed the world. The choice is ours.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I have a twofold question.

I found his approach to the taxation of fertilizer tariffs very interesting. Is he in favour of lifting the tariffs on purchases made before March 2 or even on those made after? That is my first question.

My second question is this: With the expected global food shortage, more and more countries are stopping food exports. That is the case with India with wheat and Indonesia with palm oil. What does my colleague think about this food protectionism?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Chair, I have always wanted to answer this question for the farmers in eastern Canada.

They are disproportionately being impacted by the fertilizer tariffs. Forty per cent of the fertilizer that comes into eastern Canada, and that is Quebec east, is imported, so they pay the most tariff out of all the farmers across Canada. The fertilizer trade is a global phenomenon. Forty per cent of the nitrogen that comes out of the world's production of fertilizer comes out of Russia or Russian-owned assets.

Putting a 35% tariff on Canadian farmers is fixing nothing. It is actually penalizing Canadian farmers. The Liberal government seems to be very good at that.

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

Madam Chair, I reject the premise of the hon. member's speech. If the Liberals were so terrible for agriculture, then why are farm receipts up by 13.7% over last year? Why are crop receipts up over 9.2% over last year? Why are livestock receipts up by 13.4% from last year?

The member mentioned fertilizer and the 35% increase. I understand there is a worry about that, but I am more worried about the 100% increase of fertilizer. What about the farmers and the distributors who rearranged their supply chains and did not pay that 35% but paid a higher price? Should those farmers not be compensated?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Chair, this is a direct supply chain issue.

It is no secret grain prices have gone up by 100% to 150% in several commodities, increasing farmers' income. That is why the farm receipts are going up. It is simple math. They have not produced any more. There have been severe droughts. About half of my riding was droughted out last year. They did not produce more receipts, but the value of the grain went up by double. That is why the receipts are up.

As for income tariffs and what is going on with fertilizer, not only is the world supply of fertilizer being shorted because of the Russian supply chain, but to add insult to injury to our Canadian farmers, the government has also added a tariff, which is making everything more expensive, and it is just in Canada. It is back to that “Justinflation” type of process that is going on here that we all experience in Canada.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Chair, my colleague has incredible experience in agriculture.

One of the other things we have been talking about today is the impact the carbon tax is having on Canadian farmers. The idea of that is to transition farmers into using a different fuel for grain drying and heating barns and buildings.

What other fuel source are the Liberals asking farmers to transition to? Does it actually exist?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Chair, ironically, no. On the fuel source, what are they going to reduce? It is the only option they really have at this point. There is no other choice. We have no choice to make.

We need energy to grow food. It does not matter where it comes from. We need diesel fuel and it comes from natural gas and it comes from fossil fuels. There is no other choice right now. Manitoba tried to eliminate the use of coal for heating homes and stuff like that, and it did not work. It just came back that we needed to heat our homes at the end of the day.

This is a made-in-Canada problem. The government can fix it, if it really decides to and starts working with farmers. I think that is the most important thing it could start doing right now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, we are in the House tonight talking about probably one of the most critical issues that we are going be confronting in this Parliament. We are talking about a global food crisis and we need to talk about it more. We are talking about a global food crisis in which hundreds of millions of people's lives and well-being are at stake. We know already that 181 million people are expected to be at crisis or worse levels of hunger around the world. This is a massive challenge that we need to talk about more: the global food crisis. We need to be sounding the alarm on this and calling for stronger government action.

How do we address this challenge? I think we need to reflect on the need to focus more on food security and food aid as part of international development. We need to talk about the role the Russian aggression is playing in causing global hunger. We need to talk about how Canadian government policy is hurting the agricultural sector and reducing its ability to respond to this global crisis. All three of these are parts of the response we need to have.

When it comes to Canadian international development, I want to add my voice to those who are calling on the government to step up and do more to confront the global food crisis, to spend more specifically on issues of food security and emergency food support. I think, too often, the current Liberal government wants to focus on using international assistance to play wedge politics and divide Canadians. Additionally, we have seen money spent through foreign vehicles such as the Chinese state-controlled Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is something the Conservatives oppose. Our international assistance should not be about wedge politics, it should not be about supporting authoritarian states, and it certainly should not be about currying political favour as part of some Security Council election. Our international development should be squarely focused on supporting the most vulnerable around the world and helping them meet vital needs such as access to food. We need to do more. We should do more, and these vital needs for the most vulnerable need to be our focus.

It is important for Canadians to understand that this escalating food crisis is one of the effects of the horrific invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime. Ukrainian farmers play a critical role in exporting food to the world, and the critical supply line for that food is export through the Black Sea. The total invasion of Ukraine by Russia from three sides included an amphibious assault through the Black Sea, and the Putin regime is now blockading the export of food from Ukraine. Russia is also mining agricultural land, destroying equipment and otherwise making it very difficult for Russian farmers to do what they do best.

What is happening in Ukraine, and particularly in the Black Sea, is very insidious. It is a return to the Stalin-era policy of using mass starvation as a political tool. Stalin sought to erase Ukrainian identity and used mass starvation as a tool of genocide during the Holodomor. Vladimir Putin is also trying to erase Ukraine's existence, and is again using mass starvation as part of the violence that the House has already said constitutes genocide. Some have speculated that the Putin regime's strategy is to provoke mass starvation in African countries that depend on exports from Ukraine, and thus put pressure on Europe by using mass starvation to generate escalating migration. This underlines the limitless depravity of the Putin regime. It is spreading the impact of its violence by causing mass starvation for political purposes. Just as with the Holodomor, we are seeing the use of starvation by the Putin regime for political purposes. This already represents a widening of the conflict and, in effect, an attack by the Putin regime on these other countries that depend on Ukrainian food.

What do we do about this, recognizing the profound risks and harms that go far beyond Ukraine's borders? We need to lean in hard by giving Ukraine all the tools it needs to fight this invasion and to win, and to end the Black Sea blockade. We must urgently supply vitally needed heavy artillery to Ukraine. We must spare no expense and hold nothing back in massively upping Ukraine's access to the artillery and heavy equipment it needs to win this war. This has been the clear and repeated ask of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people: It has been for more military equipment and the heavy artillery they need. We should support them in that.

We hear often, and rightly so, about how investments in international development can help global security. I agree. It is also true that making investments in security by supporting Ukraine and doing all we can to help Ukraine win the war will save lives not just in Ukraine, but in the many other countries that rely on food from Ukraine. We need to see the use of starvation as a weapon of war as a significant escalation. It is a broadening of the attack that requires urgent action. During the Holodomor, the world failed to respond. We must not repeat this mistake.

There is much more I could say about how we can support Canadian farmers, but I hope that more people will lean in to respond to this crisis and call for stronger action from the government.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Chair, I think we all agree in the House about the illegal and egregious genocide that is happening against the Ukrainian people. Yevheniya Kravchuk is one of the MPs who was here from Ukraine this week. In her remarks, she said that Putin was relying on democracies thinking that democracies are weak because we are under pressure when our populations have inflation, increased food prices and increased fuel prices, and he thinks this is going to cause us to have pressure from our populations and therefore not be as resolute.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that the food prices, fuel prices and inflation happening around the world and here in Canada are very much because of what Putin is doing in Ukraine? What are his thoughts on that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to work with my friend across the way. We agree on many issues. We disagree on some as well. I would say, respectfully, that I think inflation is caused by a number of factors. We had a significant issue of inflation prior to the invasion of Ukraine. A significant part of that is the government's approach to spending. We have run up more debt in the past seven years than the country had previously.

I will certainly agree with her in saying that we need to have firm resolve. We need to be prepared to do what is necessary to impose sanctions that are debilitating to the Russian economy. We need to up energy production to displace Europe's dependence on energy. We need to supply the heavy artillery that is required and we need to endure through these circumstances, because so much of what we believe in is at stake.

I believe that citizens in democracies believe in and benefit from the systems, and are prepared to endure. While we may disagree on some aspects of the inflation issue, I appreciate that we agree on the fundamental point about the strength of democracies.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or FAO, war and climate change are the main causes of global food insecurity.

For example, last summer, droughts in western Canada, the United States and Russia, as well as flooding in Germany, resulted in disastrous harvests. It was hoped that this year, stocks could be replenished. Now, with the war in Ukraine, that will not be possible.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, unfortunately, I only had five minutes. I can speak for hours on almost any subject, but on this subject I had a lot more to say. The member raised some important points. I would say, at the same time, that some of the polices of the government that supposedly are about responding to climate change are also having a negative effect. Agriculture polices around limiting the use of fertilizer just make no sense. It is making it harder for Canadian farmers to supply more food to the world. We need to recognize all of these different issues and recognize that we need to address the security issue and the international development issues and also support Canadian agriculture as a key part of the response to this crisis.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I appreciate him also raising the Holodomor as a serious issue. I wanted to ask him about some of the Canadian companies that continue to do business in Russia.

What should be done about their continued participation? In regard to Putin, how long should sanctions remain in place if we are able to see this resolved at any point in time? I would be interested to hear his perspective on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, in terms of companies that are continuing to do business with Russia, there are two possible circumstances. We could speak about those that may be violating sanctions, and we could also speak about cases where the sanctions are not preventing them from doing that.

We need to continue to push for tougher sanctions, and we also need strengthened sanctions enforcement. The member has talked about how we respond to this food crisis. There are many different actions that are required, and part of it is ensuring that victory, supporting our farmers and supporting international development. A lot of work needs to be done, and I hope we are prepared to do that work and have the resolve.

On his second question about how long the sanctions should be in place, very clearly we need to be committed to sustaining these sanctions until the Putin regime withdraws from all of Ukraine's sovereign territory, as was recognized by the government of Russia in the Budapest Memorandum.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands, a very good colleague of mine.

I am pleased to rise virtually and take part in this debate on global food insecurity. This is an issue that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has been working on for the past week. We have had the opportunity to hear from a number of witnesses, including the Ukrainian agricultural minister. We know how important a contributor Ukraine is to the world's grain supply.

Of course, the war caused by Vladimir Putin is illegal. I wish to express my solidarity with the Ukrainian people, who are still resisting and fighting every day to maintain sovereignty over their territory.

We have heard numerous stories over the past few weeks. What is concerning is that Ukraine typically exports about five to six million tonnes of grain per month. Last week, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that Ukraine was able to export only one million tonnes of grain in May. Obviously, that is causing a ripple effect in the world market. It will cause massive famines in some African countries. This is not only worrying for the Ukrainian people, it is also worrying for developing countries that are not fortunate enough to have such a strong agriculture industry or to get the same yield from their land.

Canada plays a fairly important role in the world. More than 20 million tons of wheat are stuck in Ukraine right now. The Ukrainian port is under Russian blockade. I do not need to repeat everything my colleagues from all parties have said. We have seen the consequences of this war.

I want to reassure the House that our Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are on the job. They have had several meetings with actors at the international level. G7 and G20 countries are on the job. They are taking action and looking for strategies. It is not easy. It is not just about whether people can farm the land safely. It is also about finding ways, if the land can be farmed and the harvests are good, to export all that grain without access to ports. There is the rub. It is extremely difficult.

Last week, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was told that Ukraine's rail network is not the same as in the rest of Europe. There can be wait times in excess of 27 days. Ukraine asked us to build temporary silos, which can store grain safely for four months while awaiting export. Will Ukraine be able to ship its grain around the world in four months?

We are working on all of these issues with several stakeholders. Unfortunately, it is hard to say very much in just five minutes, but I want to reassure my colleagues. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had several meetings with G7 countries. I know that we are working very closely with Ukraine to come up with solutions. Canadian logistics experts are saying that trucks might have to be used, because that is the only way to get the grain out. Canada will play an important role in this fight to ensure that the whole world has access to food.

Again, this is not a partisan issue. I want to thank all my colleagues who have participated in tonight's debate and those who will be speaking later on, too.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Chair, I just want to know something. The tariff on fertilizer is disproportionately impacting eastern Canadian farmers, because they have to import. They are the only farmers in Canada who have to import fertilizer. Does my colleague know how much that is costing eastern Canada?

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

Madam Chair, I would encourage the member to move away from that 35%. That is not the only issue. I have suppliers who have rearranged their supply chain and paid a higher price, and I have asked that question of the particular member. An exemption of 35% would exclude the other farmers who may have paid a higher price because their distributors rearranged their supply chains.

Obviously, any solution I would advocate for would be a direct help toward farmers as opposed to the simple exemption to certain distributors who decided to continue to deal with Russia. Others rearranged their supply chains and may have paid a higher price, but those farmers also deserve a break, and that is the solution I would advocate for, as opposed to simply a blanket 35% exemption.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Chair, I am going to come back to the same issue again, because farmers in our ridings keep asking us about it.

The fertilizers were purchased and paid for before the war broke out. They are now paying a 35% tariff that was imposed when the war started. However, the farmers had already paid for their orders. Now they have to add a 35% tax, which goes to the government and does absolutely no harm to Russia.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, as a government representative, why has the government still not done anything about this?

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

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his question. The farmers who paid for fertilizer last year for this spring signed a contract. I do not think it is fair that they pay a 35% tariff. That risk should be on the distributor or company that did not buy or have the fertilizer arrive at the right time.

We are talking about the 35% tariff. However, what would have happened if a ship had sunk? Other risks could come into play as well.

Business relations fall to the provinces, and I know the member prefers it when jurisdictions are respected.

Other distributors have rearranged their supply chains. Do those farmers, who may have paid a higher price, deserve a lower price as well?

I, for one, would advocate for a lower price for all farmers instead of just offering something to farmers who used distributors that are paying the 35% tariff. In my opinion, it should go directly to the farmer.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, my colleague and I worked together very well on the ALS caucus, and I enjoyed working with him on that very much.

I want to talk about the aid levels Canada is contributing. I do not think anyone in this place will be surprised by that.

Under the present government, we are currently at 0.3%. Many people would think the Liberal government, especially with what we heard from the Prime Minister in 2015, would have contributed more, but in fact our highest overseas development assistance came under Joe Clark, when he was the foreign affairs minister, and the Conservative government. We did not get to our target, but we did get to 0.5%. I will say that the Conservative Party of Joe Clark is definitely not the Conservative Party we have now, which ran in 2019 with a massive cut to ODA.

When can we expect the Liberal government to live up to the very low standards the Conservative government has set with regard to development assistance?

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

Madam Chair, I do have the highest esteem for my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I think she is a great member of Parliament.

In the immediate term, when we are discussing global food security, I would certainly advocate for any programs that go toward increasing the amount toward the World Food Programme, because that is the only way we have. There are vehicles in place and there are systems in place already, and if we reinvent the wheel, we are not going to get the food in time to stop famine in certain countries.

Canada will be able to eat, but at what price? There are countries, unfortunately, in the southern hemisphere that will simply run out of food. Canada has already announced $70 million for the World Food Programme, and I would certainly advocate for that to be increased, if it needs to be increased.

In the longer term—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Unfortunately, we have to leave that for another opportunity.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Chair, it is an honour today to rise in the House to speak to this very important issue. I will say from the outset that I have certainly learned a lot from sitting here and listening to the debate over the last few hours about the realities of the situation and, indeed, I have learned a lot of information by listening to my colleagues in the NDP, the Conservatives and the Bloc and what they have had to contribute.

First of all, the thing that I find most alarming is the fact that almost one out of every 10 people in the world is currently facing a problem with respect to accessing enough food. That is extremely problematic, and I genuinely believe that Canada has a role to play in that.

With respect to the line of questioning that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has been raising over the last few hours, I believe that role is most definitely going to have to increase, in particular as we move forward into the future. We do know that, by 2050, we will need to be producing globally about 70% more food than we currently are. Therefore, when we consider some of that information, notwithstanding the war that is going on in Ukraine, because that is a whole separate issue, there is certainly a role for Canada to play in ensuring that there is access to food throughout the globe.

It is not just from a humanitarian perspective, and I asked this in one of my questions earlier. The humanitarian perspective is extremely noble. It is extremely important for a country like Canada to play that role, and I believe that Canada feels an obligation from the humanitarian perspective, but more importantly, it comes back to what the Minister of International Development said in his opening speech on this earlier this evening, when he said that “international assistance is conflict prevention”. If we can make sure that we are playing a very active role in ensuring that people have access to food, we are going to help reduce the conflicts that are happening, which inevitably quite often spill into international conflicts.

Another member said, earlier this evening, that wars quite often start as a result of a lack of food, in one way or another, directly or indirectly. When we consider that and consider the real implications of that, it makes absolute sense. A basic human need for survival is the access to food, and when we get to a point where that is not the case, we are going to have conflict.

I will just talk, very quickly, about what is going on in Ukraine. When we consider the size of Ukraine, which is the fifth-largest supplier of wheat, we can very quickly see how in a global market this is going to affect different countries and different stakeholders very quickly. Specifically, Ukraine produces 50% of the wheat in Lebanon, 43% in Libya, 22% in Yemen and 21% in Bangladesh. Let us just imagine for a second what happens to the supply chains and the various individuals at the various parts of the production of food when they suddenly cannot access that food. It really makes me think of the insecurity that will exist throughout the world and the conflicts that might end up starting as a result of that.

I am looking forward to listening to the rest of what members have to contribute tonight. Certainly, from my perspective, one of the things that are front and centre and that I worry about the most is what that conflict will be like if Canada does not step in and increase our contributions quite a bit more over the years, as we see the demand for food growing throughout the globe.