SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 267 - Dec/13/23

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Dec/13/23 4:36:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his comments recognizing the huge impact this has had on the agriculture industry, which is the backbone of my riding. So many of my agriculture producers are being challenged, whether because of a port strike in Vancouver, the restrictions, the worries about a possible port strike in Montreal and the huge costs that are being put on our farmers, which increase their costs. As the member knows, increasing their costs and transportation costs is going to eventually increase costs to consumers. Ultimately, that is going to put more people into food banks. I wonder if the member would expand on that.

110 words

Mr. John Barlow

Dec/13/23 4:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very thankful to my colleague, who has always been a strong advocate for Canadian farmers and certainly his constituents in Saskatchewan. This is why I find the comments of the Prime Minister today in question period so offensive. He said that farmers are not telling the truth about the cost of the carbon tax and said that 97% of their carbon taxes are covered. That is completely false. Unlike most any other industry, Canadian farmers pay the carbon tax over and over again, from the rail lines when they transport their grain to the trucking companies when they move their cattle to the shipping companies when they are moving other commodities and buying fertilizer, fuel or feed. They pay it every single time, and those prices and increased costs are passed directly on to consumers.

139 words

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Dec/13/23 4:38:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about grocery affordability and examining rising food costs in Canada. The agriculture committee submitted this report in June after a fairly lengthy study. This is a topic that has been near and dear to my heart for many years. I come from a produce background. Having a family farm and a produce business feeding Canadians is something that my family has prided ourselves on for our entire lives. It has been our livelihood. Making sure we can sell an affordable product to Canadians so Canadian families can go to the grocery store and afford to buy healthy, nutritious food at a reasonable cost is something that all farm producers want in this country. Unfortunately, we are in a time right now when we are not seeing that. Families are struggling. I hear this on a daily basis. They are struggling to afford the basic necessities, to heat their homes, to pay their mortgages and to afford food. Recently, I talked to someone from my community who runs one of the food banks. I asked him how things have been and if he has noticed an increase in demand for food. He said that they are so busy that he has not even had the time to sit down to look at the numbers. The food just keeps coming and people are showing up at the door for food. He said he hears from folks that they just need to get food for one month or one week, and that they will be okay in a couple of weeks, they just a bit of food right now. He said he tells people they can visit the food bank as long as they need to. He does not want them putting money on their credit cards and racking up credit card bills to eat. They can go to the food bank as long as they need to and pay off their bills. The food bank will be there to support them to make sure they can feed their families and kids. That, to me, was very striking. Never in my lifetime have I imagined, living in Canada, that I would see people suffering so badly that they could not afford food to feed their families, especially when I know Canada produces some of the best in the world and we have access to fresh food here like we have never before. One of the things making it more expensive for farmers to produce their food is the carbon tax. That was talked about in this report. I look at all the steps that are taken along the journey at my farm, in particular, speaking from experience, and when the cost of fuel increases, it impacts the cost of doing business. It is not just on the fuel we use to bring the goods from the field into the warehouse, from the warehouse into the packing plant and then from the packing plant to food distribution centres, it is all along the supply chain. Packaging is one area where I have noticed an increase over the years, especially during COVID. People tried to get packaging for their goods to sell to consumers, consumers were eating more at home instead of at restaurants, and when the buying habits of consumers changed, it put a big demand on grocery stores and producers to make sure they could keep getting the goods to grocery stores. The cost of packaging increased partially not only because of the increased cost due to the carbon tax in getting the packaging and all the steps it takes to make the packaging, but also because of demand for the packaging. The reason I bring up the cost of packaging is that we have recently seen that the government has a new plastics ban proposed, not the first one that was struck down by the Supreme Court, but the second plastics packaging ban. One of the recommendations in this report was, “ensuring [the government's] plastic reduction requirements are attainable by extending the implementation timeline for a single-use plastics ban and working with retailers to ensure that commercially viable alternatives to plastics, in particular for packaging designed to extend the shelf-life of food and limit food waste, will be available in the needed quantities.” I would like to take a moment to educate those who may be watching at home right now. This proposed plastics ban for the fruit and vegetable industry is new. It is not the single-use plastics ban. What consumers need to know is that two-thirds of the fresh produce we eat and consume in this country is imported from other countries. While we have a great area in Leamington where we grow a lot of vegetables in greenhouses, and every year we are seeing more and more greenhouse vegetable production come on line, we are still reliant on most of our food coming as imports from other countries. The average person does not realize, before food ever hits their grocery store shelves, it has been on a ship coming from somewhere across the world. Whether it is food from South America, South Africa or other parts of Africa, and a lot comes from South America, it sits in refrigerated containers on ships going across the ocean to get to Canada. Then it has to be unloaded at a port and put on a truck. Those trucks come from the United States, and sometimes they came through Montreal or B.C., but for the most part, they come through the U.S. A lot of it comes into Toronto at the Ontario Food Terminal. To keep vegetables and fruit fresh for their journey, and it can be weeks on end before they ever see a grocery store shelf, they need to be in packaging that is resilient and that will hold up the quality of the produce. Produce is mostly water. It is just a fact of life. Fruit and vegetables are mostly water. I do not know the exact percentage, but it is about 90% or so. If we are trying to ship water in the form of fruits and vegetables and trying to keep it fresh to get it onto the grocery store shelves, it needs to be in something that is durable to preserve that freshness and quality. The number one consumed product in the world is bananas, and they have to be shipped in plastic to stop them from ripening on route so that we can ripen them once they get into the country. If this new plastics ban goes ahead, we will not see bananas on the shelves anymore. In fact, in the U.S. people have said, and some suppliers have said, that if the plastics ban on produce goes forth in Canada, we will not be seeing things on shelves such as bagged salads and all the premade things, such as precut veggies and precut fruit. We are not going to see berries in clamshells. Grapes come in bags. Some potatoes come in plastic bags. It is for a reason, which is to keep it fresh in our home so we have time to consume it before it goes bad. If this ban were to go through, we would see huge amounts of food waste, which would increase greenhouse gas emissions. We would see up to 50% food waste, and the greenhouse gas emissions from food waste would double. This would also have a catastrophic impact on our food security in this country. We are not just talking about affordability for Canadians. We are now talking about food security because of the NDP-Liberal government's own policies, which are creating this scenario. I also want to touch on the carbon tax. I have some folks in my riding who have written to me recently to talk about those increases to the cost of their production that they are not able to recoup. They are grain farmers, and one grain farmer reached out to tell me that their gas bill last month for drying their corn was $39,000. That was just for one month. The carbon tax portion of that was $10,000 for one month, and that farmer will never be able to recoup that $10,000. They will not be able to put it back into their business to innovate and make sure they are doing what they can to help the environment. I have a chicken farmer in my riding who gave me his gas bills for the whole year. He is paying $15,000 in carbon taxes this year just to heat one barn. The government's own policies, whether the new plastics ban or the carbon tax, are creating unaffordable food for Canadians, and the government should be doing more to make sure that Canadians can afford to feed themselves by changing its policies and axing the carbon tax. Canadians know that Conservatives would axe the carbon tax. We would make life more affordable for Canadians because, after eight years of this Prime Minister, he is just not worth the cost.

1529 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Dec/13/23 4:48:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member knows how long Europe has gone without bananas because Europe does not allow things to be shipped in when wrapped in plastic, or if they are shipped in wrapped in plastic, there is a penalty to be paid. I also wonder if she has heard of the Nabob Coffee Company way out my way in British Columbia. The coffee pods look like they have a plastic ring inside a plastic bag, but that plastic is actually made from vegetable matter, and it is entirely compostable, so that works. Could she comment on that?

101 words

Ms. Lianne Rood

Dec/13/23 4:49:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a great one. The answer is that, at this point, there is no commercially viable option to the plastic packaging available right now. It is a global supply chain. It is not just Canada that we are working with. We are working with the globe. As I said, we import two-thirds of our fresh food in this country from other countries. If there were a commercially viable option at this time, I am sure that retailers and farmers, anybody who needs to package produce, would be using it. Because we are a global supply chain, and because we rely on two-thirds of our food to be imported, it means those countries that we import from also have to be on board with this. If there were an alternative that was globally available at a good cost, because we do not want to do things that are going to increase the cost for Canadians, I know that farmers and the industry would be working very hard to be able to find that alternative. We heard that from the grocers themselves, as well. We are looking for alternatives. They are just not there yet. Once they are, I am sure that the industry will make sure to do all it can to implement them.

221 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/13/23 4:50:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will be aware that, earlier this week, Dr. Jim Stanford was one of our witnesses. He provided our committee with a brief that derives its information from publicly available data. On page five of that brief he noted that, from the beginning of 2021 to the spring of 2022, “the world price of oil tripled” from $40 a barrel to $120 a barrel and that, in that period, “the jump in the price of oil [which was] driven by a combination of geopolitics and speculation...increased fossil fuel prices by 30 times as much as the $10 carbon price increase in the same period.” We also know from previous briefs that, in the last three years, oil and gas companies have seen their net profits go up by over 1,000%. Why, when Conservatives are talking about the carbon tax, do they conveniently ignore these facts and ignore their very real role in driving up food price inflation? One cannot argue with the facts. This is clear data that is available for all members, and oil profits have had a huge impact on world food prices, far more than the carbon tax has. Will my colleague acknowledge that?

206 words

Ms. Lianne Rood

Dec/13/23 4:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague at the agriculture committee. We worked really hard together on the code of conduct, which I did not get a chance to talk about yet. For the last several years, I have been a huge supporter of getting a code of conduct in place. This week, we heard that Loblaw and Walmart have no intention at this point in signing the code that is before them right now, but we have all the other retailers on board. The code of conduct is going to make it easier and better for farmers and suppliers, who generally face steep fines and fees that they have to pay just for the privilege of selling their goods on grocery store shelves. That also contributes to higher grocery prices, when farmers have to find a way to recoup the costs in the form of the fees and fines they pay to retailers for selling their goods. I hope we can see the grocery code of conduct ratified and see all parties sign onto it to make sure we can treat our farmers and our suppliers fairly so they can continue to supply nutritious food to Canadians.

200 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Dec/13/23 4:53:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, she has just failed to answer the question. My NDP colleague asked her about the oil and gas companies' exorbitant, astronomical, skyrocketing profits, which are having a very significant impact on the cost of groceries. I would like my colleague to talk about oil and gas profits. I hope she heard the question.

64 words

Ms. Lianne Rood

Dec/13/23 4:53:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague as well. The reality is that the government policies are increasing food costs. Part of it is the carbon tax. Families already cannot afford food right now, and they are going to have to pay another $700 to feed their families next year. Conservatives believe that families should be able to keep more money in their pockets. We will axe the carbon tax to help them have more affordable food.

84 words

Food

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/23 4:54:11 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauce, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Climate Change.

54 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/13/23 4:54:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House. Obviously, what is taking place today is no surprise whatsoever. It is interesting that, on Monday, I was standing up and actually being critical of the Conservative Party. It is hard to believe, but I was critical because Conservatives had brought in a concurrence report to talk about Afghanistan and foreign affairs. By doing that particular concurrence report, they prevented government legislation from being debated. Interestingly enough, the legislation that they prevented from being debated, which members could have stood up and talked about, was Bill C-56, the affordability legislation. Every word that the Conservative Party has actually said already this afternoon could have been said during that debate. That is why I argued back then, as I will today, that the Conservative Party is very much out of touch with the realities of what Canadians are actually facing. They are more concerned about how to cater to the extreme right. We hear the term “MAGA Conservatives”. I would suggest that, more and more, it is becoming something that all Canadians should be very much aware of. It is creeping out, coming from the south. It is that Donald Trump, “make America great again” theme, and the catering to the far-right there that is coming up—

236 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/23 4:56:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Simcoe
Grey

Mr. Terry Dowdall

Dec/13/23 4:56:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have just been listening here. I do not really see a whole lot of relevance in what is being said. Once again, it is kind of ridiculous, what we are hearing.

34 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/23 4:57:07 p.m.
Watch

I just want to make sure that we do not get too many points of order; when people are talking about the points of order they bring up, they should actually quote that great book we are given when we first get here. I will also say that we are speaking to a concurrence report. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

61 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/13/23 4:57:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, if the member takes the time to actually read the report that was brought forward in the form of a concurrence motion, he will find out that it is about affordability. That is, in fact, how I started my comments. I was talking about the issue of affordability in Bill C-56, the affordability act, and how that legislation was being filibustered by the Conservatives through a concurrence motion. The reason for this is that the Conservatives do not care about the issues of the day that Canadians are concerned about. Then I started to explain it. Maybe members on the other side do not all fully understand it because they are following the lead that is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party's office and that House leadership team over there. Canadians have a right to know that the pattern we are witnessing in terms of the behaviour, the issues that are being brought up and the manner in which they are being brought up definitely deal with the issue of MAGA politics. The member across the way might disagree. Maybe he should talk to his leader, and his leader can explain exactly what the Conservative agenda really is. When we think of affordability, let us think in terms of what the member for Foothills said. He tries to give an impression about the cost of food and inflation. He cites a report and says there would be a 34% increase in the next couple of years. Then he tries to say that this is a report that he was kind of quoting from. I will tell members what the Conservatives are very, very good at, which is the same thing that Donald Trump is very good at: sending out information that is misleading. I am very kind when I say that. I could think of a lot of other words to use, so I am being generous. Let me suggest the reason. Let us think about it: The member is trying to plant the seeds of fear that the price on pollution is costing huge amounts of money toward the issue of food inflation. Some of the members across the way actually believe the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand there is an obligation to listen to the leader because, after all, he is their leader. However, that does not mean they have to believe everything he says. I do not want to get into personalities, but it is like a snake oil salesperson. Let us think about this. Let us think in terms of—

433 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/23 5:00:32 p.m.
Watch

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

17 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Dec/13/23 5:00:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is well known in this place that we do not refer to hon. members as snake oil salesmen or other negative things. All members here, if they are going to debate, should debate and use either a member's title or the name of their riding. I just do not think it is parliamentary language, and the member should maybe dwell upon our rules a bit more.

70 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/23 5:00:56 p.m.
Watch

The Speaker was clear in his report that we should be referring to one another by our proper titles, which are, of course, our riding names. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

30 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/13/23 5:01:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the other day, I could not believe the number of times the Conservatives stood on points of order. I think they almost doubled the length of my speech because of the number of interruptions. Why were they interrupting then? It was because I was telling people following the debates how the Conservatives were voting; they took offence to my saying they do not support Ukraine and constantly vote against supporting it. They were up, one after another, saying that I cannot tell Canadians how they voted. The point is that, as sensitive as the Conservative members might be in the House, their leader is sending very misleading messages. I will use the specific example that has already been brought up by a number of members today. Conservatives talk about the price on pollution. It does not matter how many times I say this, they ignore the facts and the reality. I will state the facts, something that they cannot deny. I go to the University of Winnipeg and sit in classrooms for introduction courses or second-year programs, as well as high schools in the north end of Winnipeg, and speak with the students. I do not know if there is a Conservative member who has the courage to sit beside me and have that discussion, but I would talk about the facts and see what the member has to say. Here is a fact: The price on pollution also provides a rebate, and 80% of Canadians or more get more money back than they pay. The Conservatives either do not understand it or are misleading Canadians. When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, what he does not say is that he is also going to be getting rid of the rebate. This would hurt average Canadians in the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, the people who need it the most. That is the money he would take away. That is the reality. However, it does not prevent the leader of the Conservative Party from touring the country and telling people that, if he gets rid of the price on pollution, life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. That is just not true. Like Donald Trump, he will say things that are not true. It is that very real MAGA-right element that the Conservative Party of Canada is courting in a big way; it is prepared to sacrifice sound public policy in order to capture that base of support. At the end of the day, it is unfortunate, because people are concerned about our environment, unlike the Conservatives, who still, in good part, deny climate issues are real. They do not believe in climate change, at least not publicly, in their public policies. They talk about making life more affordable by getting rid of the price on pollution. I will remind them what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. We all remember the governor. He is the individual who runs the Bank of Canada and the one the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to fire. Then there was an issue on which he kind of agreed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, so he has watered down that position. The member for Abbotsford was told not to tell the leader what to say, that type of thing. There was some sort of demotion, but I will not go into that. That is all internal Conservative politics. However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada today seems to be a little more sympathetic to the Bank of Canada. One Conservative member tries to give the impression of a 30%-plus increase— Ms. Marilyn Gladu: It is 34%. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is 34%, as has been corrected by the member opposite. However, as the Conservatives want to give that bit of false information, what does the Governor of the Bank of Canada say? We are talking about a decimal point, which is 0.15% of 1%. In my books, that makes the Conservative Party an absolute joke. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Conservative Party to try to tell Canadians that by cutting out the price on pollution life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. The MAGA right might believe that, and they will be talking about it at great length over the Christmas break until we come back. The Conservatives are going to continue that spin as if the price on pollution is what is driving up inflation, but nothing could be further from the truth. One would think that would change their behaviour, but one should not bank on it. The Conservatives will not, because they are more concerned about that simple phrase so that they can put it on a bumper sticker. It is unfortunate, because it is sound public policy, and we can think of the consequence of it. When the Conservatives are talking about affordability, we can think in terms of what is impacting the price of our groceries. One of the major factors is what is taking place in the world; for example, the war in Europe. Russia has invaded Ukraine. There was a time when every member of Parliament stood as one in recognizing that we had to be there for Ukraine. We saw the world, in good part, recognize the importance of Ukraine solidarity. However, we have witnessed the MAGA Conservatives, over the last number of weeks, adopt a position that they do not support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Members can think about that for a moment. We have had so many trade agreements, 35 or 40 trade agreements, and no prime minister or government in Canada has signed more trade agreements than this current Prime Minister, and it was nice that the Conservative Party supported every one of them. Even when they were in government, the Conservatives brought in trade agreements. Why? It is because they realized that they are in Canada's best interest. They provide more marketplaces and more competition, and more competition means better prices. However, the very first time I have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against a trade agreement was on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I do not understand how they can justify that sort of position. It is not going to make life more affordable here in Canada. So, when members opposite talk about affordability, how do they justify their MAGA behaviour dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement? Now, the Conservatives are out there again trying to spread all sorts of information. They are saying “Well, we support Ukraine”. We see members stand up on S.O. 31s saying how they support Ukraine. Well, if they support Ukraine, they would be supporting more affordable grocery prices, especially in the long run. Why did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? Why did they vote, not once, not twice but at least on three separate occasions during the line-by-line breakdown of expenses for the government to actually spend money on? On three occasions, the Conservatives intentionally voted that money down, yet they say they support Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words. I would encourage my Conservative friends opposite to reflect on the flip-flop they made on the price on pollution. They say the price on pollution is going to make life more unaffordable. We know that is not true, but that is what they say. In the last federal election they did not say that. In the last federal election, they were in support of a price on pollution, but they took a flip-flop and now they do not support a price on pollution. It is marginal. We are talking a fraction point in terms of the impact on the inflation rate of groceries. I would like to see them take what I would classify as an honourable flip-flop. An honourable flip-flop would be to recognize that the MAGA right is wrong and get behind Ukraine, and get behind the government, the Liberals and the New Democrats. The New Democrats rarely vote for trade agreements, but even they see the benefits of this trade agreement. The Bloc and the Greens do too. The Conservatives are the only political entity voting against it. They are the only political entity that voted against the line-by-line expenditures. That has more of an impact on long-term grocery prices than the price on pollution idea. I would encourage the Conservatives, over the next number of weeks as they go and talk to their constituents, to reconsider the way they have been behaving inside the House. They should look at the benefits of the legislation and budgetary measures the government is taking that will make life more affordable and start voting for some of those initiatives, such as the dental plan that we just announced that is going to help literally millions of Canadians; the grocery rebate that was given by the government that helped nine or 11 million Canadians; and the child care program that we made at $10 a day, a truly national program. By the way, that is a program that they called a slush fund in the last federal election. These are the types of actions that, if the Conservative Party would abandon the MAGA right, we would have better public policy that would be in the best interests of Canadians and that would make life more affordable. This is a government that will continue, day in and day out, to look at ways to ensure that life is as affordable as it possibly can be by using good, sound government policy. We would look to the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party, to recognize those facts. There is nothing wrong with supporting the types of initiatives that the government is bringing forward to provide the breaks Canadians want.

1675 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Dec/13/23 5:14:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite certainly has tried to summon every boogeyman he can think of. Canadians are seeing in their pocketbooks that they cannot afford to buy groceries and they cannot afford to pay their heating bills. They are seeing the carbon tax line. I get calls to my office all the time about it. I am sure that the member opposite is getting the same kinds of calls from people who are concerned about the increasing cost of groceries and the increasing cost of the carbon tax on everything. Is he not receiving those calls?

97 words