Questions on the Order Paper  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?

Questions on the Order Paper  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?

Questions on the Order Paper  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?

Questions on the Order Paper  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?

Global Food Insecurity  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.

Global Food Insecurity  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.

Global Food Insecurity  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.

Global Food Insecurity  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.

Global Food Insecurity  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.

Global Food Insecurity  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.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11  Madam Speaker, I guess my immediate response goes back to how one backs up a double-wheeled wagon. The fastest way to back up a double-wheeled wagon is to do it very slowly. Those from a farming background will know that, because if it is rammed through, it will have to be done again.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11  Madam Speaker, I think the direction to update the Broadcasting Act is supported by all organizations and all sides of this House. That need is clearly understood. What I have been hearing is that in the process of updating and attempting to gather support to update the bill, there has been overreach.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11  Madam Speaker, this legislation has not been updated for 31 years. There was an attempted update in the last Parliament, and the very same flaws that we saw in Bill C-10 are being brought again to this chamber and again to this committee. Why were adjustments not made? We have seen time allocation moved at every stage of this bill, rather than the genuine debate that I think my colleague in the NDP is seeking.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11  Madam Speaker, I actually articulated the specific areas that needed addressing. Those same areas were articulated and brought forward with Bill C-10, and again there were closure motions rather than serious dialogue around those changes. That is what we experienced. I do not sit on that committee.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C‑11  Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and bring the voice of Chatham–Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I want to thank my colleague for splitting his time with me. I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 16. Actually, I am not pleased to speak to it, but I am honoured to have this opportunity on Motion No. 16, the programming motion on Bill C-11.