SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/17/22 2:50:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know when the government will finally return our coastal waters back to wild salmon. Polluting, open-net fish farms destroy ecosystems and livelihoods, but Liberals and Conservatives keep putting profits before communities. This week, Washington state said no to fish farms. Now the B.C. Sechelt First Nation said no to fish farms, but Liberals keep saying yes to rich CEOs. When will the Liberals get fish farms out of the water with a transition for workers?

82 words

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

Nov/17/22 6:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on the Liberal government's proposed fertilizer policy, which I also raised in the House just before the summer break. On December 11, 2020, Environment and Climate Change Canada released a document entitled “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy: Canada's strengthened climate plan to create jobs and support people, communities and the planet”. The release of this document was important enough to warrant a press conference by the Prime Minister himself, accompanied by several of his cabinet ministers. At 78 pages, this document is a lot to take in, but what is most concerning is that on page 45 it indicates that the government will “set a national emission reduction target of 30% below 2020 levels from fertilizers”. I had the opportunity over the summer to talk with many farmers and farm organizations about this policy, and there are many people with many concerns. Given that fertilizer is already a major input cost for Canadian farms, it follows that farmers already use as little of it as possible and only as much as is necessary. The only way to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% seems to be to reduce fertilizer applications by 30%. Such a policy would be harmful to Canadian farmers, Canadian consumers and the global food supply. According to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, a typical farm consisting of 1,000 acres of canola and 1,000 acres of wheat would have its annual profits reduced by approximately $40,000 per year if these proposed fertilizer restrictions were implemented. Such a massive reduction would be devastating not only to farmers, but to the many urban entrepreneurs they do business with. A massive reduction in fertilizer would trigger a massive reduction in crop yields, which would then lead to a dramatic increase in the price of bread and bread products at the grocery story. With inflation and the carbon tax already driving up the price of everything at the grocery store, the last thing Canadian consumers need is for the price of groceries to be driven up even higher by these new fertilizer restrictions. The problem will not be limited to Canadians, though. Indeed, Canada already produces enough food to feed everyone in this country, and we export the surplus to international markets. As brutal as these fertilizer restrictions may be, we should still be able to produce enough food to feed everyone in this country. The problem is that the amount of food that Canada exports to foreign countries will be dramatically reduced. That means these fertilizer restrictions will simply cause many of the poorest people in the world to starve to death. Given that the only way to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% seems to be to reduce fertilizer applications by 30%, how will the Liberal government implement this policy? Will it be with a fertilizer tax, similar to the carbon tax, perhaps by restricting the amount of fertilizer that farmers can buy with some sort of licensing program, or is the federal government simply going to nationalize every potash mine in the country and reduce output by 30%? The Liberal government's plan to reduce fertilizer emissions by 30% does not seem to be particularly well thought out, but I would be curious to hear from the hon. parliamentary secretary as to how exactly the government plans to implement this policy.

574 words

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Mr. Michael Kram

Nov/17/22 6:30:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to share some insights about how the government seems to make announcements first and then figure out the details later. In a reply to my Order Paper question, Question No. 89, the government said that it did not even study how rationing fertilizer would affect the food supply in Canada and affect Canadian agricultural production, nor how lower exports would affect the global food supply. Furthermore, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food admitted in writing, in Order Paper Question No. 90, that the government did not study how rationing fertilizer would impact the economy of Saskatchewan, whether it be from reduced crop yields or from the resulting unemployment, including fewer jobs in agri-retail, at canola crushing plants and at farms throughout the province. Why is an issue as fundamental as food production not worth studying before an announcement?

147 words