SoVote

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

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/13/23 5:15:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member heard that the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the price on pollution, or the carbon tax which is what the Conservatives like to put on bumper stickers, actually is going to cost 0.15%. That is 0.15 of 1%. That is a far cry from what the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to spread throughout the country, which is exceptionally misleading. Canadians want a government that actually has a climate plan. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, most Canadians recognize that climate change is real. There is an expectation of leadership. They are seeing it with this government in terms of a number of policy points that we have annunciated in order to be able to ensure a higher sense of affordability. If we want to talk about inflation rates overall, I will get to that point in my next question.

155 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Dec/13/23 5:16:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague realizes that the dog and pony show put on by his colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, counted for absolutely nothing. I do not know whether he is following the work of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but we heard again this week from the CEO of Metro. I salute him and thank him for his candour. He frankly admitted to us that he had told the minister that the major grocery chains would continue to do what they always do, which is to try to give their customers the best prices, and that they would not change their practices at all. He also told us that he had committed to signing the code of conduct the minister had asked them to sign, but he did not believe that the code of conduct would change prices. Other grocers, including the CEO of Loblaws, told us that they had no interest whatsoever in signing the code of conduct. I am therefore calling into question the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry's media event. I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on that.

196 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/13/23 5:17:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Government of Canada. I know of other provincial jurisdictions. I can attest it is the people of Canada who are exceptionally upset with the big five grocery companies. There is an expectation that we all try to do something to hold them to account. That is why, whether it was the Prime Minister or the minister of industry calling them to Ottawa, we are being a voice for 40 million Canadians and letting them know that things like a grocery code of conduct are really important to all of us. There will be a price to pay. I hope we will see a whole lot more respect, and more importantly, more action from the big five grocery chains. Under no circumstances would I ever suggest the minister or the Prime Minister not do what they have been doing in trying to hold those corporations to account.

153 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/13/23 5:18:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, why are we having this concurrence debate? We know why. It is because the Conservatives do not want us to be debating anti-scab legislation. They say they are here for workers; they are not here for workers. They moved this concurrence motion so we could not talk about protecting workers' rights. That is exactly why we are having this concurrence debate. While we are here, let us talk about food prices. I come from a coastal community, and as the Speaker knows coming from a coastal community himself, people rely on local fisheries. Wild salmon, for example, where I live is critical to food security. When it comes to going to the grocery store, it is pretty sad when Galen Weston earns 431 times what his employees earn, when we see corporate taxes under the Conservatives and Liberals go from 28% to 15% and that there are employees for these companies going to the food bank. Will my colleague's party consider revisiting the corporate tax rate or is it going to continue the corporate welfare that is going on while employees are going to the food bank?

191 words

Welfare

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/13/23 5:20:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member raised two issues and I want to address the first issue. I have had the opportunity to speak on the anti-scab legislation. We have heard now for I do not know how long Conservative Party members say their party is one to support the workers, and they have not been able to clearly demonstrate that. Today we were not supposed to be debating this concurrence report. The debate today was supposed to be about anti-scab legislation, again very much a progressive piece of legislation that we made a promise about in the last election. It was part of the Liberal Party's election platform to bring in anti-scab legislation. What we are witnessing is the Conservative Party using legislative tactics again, and I do not know how many times it has happened, in order to frustrate the legislative agenda. I do not think there has been an opposition party that has used it as much as this opposition party. Whether it is the issue of affordability, the issue of workers or so many other things the government continues to be focused on for Canadians, the Conservative Party of Canada is more focused on being a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons and playing party politics more so than what is good, sound public policy.

226 words

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)

Dec/13/23 5:21:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are close to 60 countries in the world that have a price on pollution: Canada; the whole European Union, 27 countries; Denmark; Japan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Singapore; Sweden; the U.K.; many more; and Ukraine— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

46 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/13/23 5:21:52 p.m.
Watch

I am being heckled because I did not recognize someone. I just want to say that the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville had stood up before the hon. member came to visit us. I am just going to say that. The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville has the floor, from the top, please.

57 words

Mr. Peter Fonseca

Dec/13/23 5:22:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, there are close to 60 countries in the world that have a price on pollution. We are talking, of course, about Canada; Denmark; the whole European Union, 27 countries; Japan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; South Africa; Singapore; Sweden; and the U.K., and I could say many more, including Ukraine. Of course, we have trade agreements with many of these countries. We have had long-standing trade agreements. We have voted in the House, as Liberals, for a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Would the Conservatives, in their reckless and risky way, put many of our trade agreements around the world in jeopardy?

109 words

Pollution

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/13/23 5:22:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the countries that the member missed is the United States, where there are many states that actually have a price on pollution. I suspect that it is only going to be a question of time before the United States will, in fact, have a price on pollution, because, as I say, there are many states that currently do. What is really important for us to recognize is that the price on pollution makes a lot of sense, as countries around the world are adopting it, including the European Union. That is one of the reasons why Ukraine has had it since 2011. One has to ask the question, why does the Conservative Party continuously vote against Ukraine, specifically the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? It is totally amazing. There is only one answer and that answer is that it is the MAGA right of the United States that is creeping into Canada via the office of the leader of the official opposition, who wants to be the golden boy of advertising and misleading, the Donald Trump of the north, as one of my colleagues would say.

189 words

Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Dec/13/23 5:24:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1945, 1950, 1953 to 1955, 1943, 1944, 1946 to 1949, 1951, 1952 and 1956.

33 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Dec/13/23 5:25:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I usually do, I want to bring the debate back to the subject we were asked to address, namely a report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. However, that does not mean that I disagree with the comments that have been made to the effect that the Conservative Party has been engaged in systematic and ongoing obstruction while claiming to be working for the common good. It is rather ironic. Meanwhile, we have a government that says all the right things and is great at photo ops and PR, but produces very little in the way of results. That is also rather ironic. Then we have the NDP lackeys, who always vote with the government, no matter what is proposed. That paints a picture of the situation. However, we are here to talk about substance, so that is what I am going to do. We conducted a study on the price of food at the grocery chains. This allows me to add a clarification to the question I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier. I told him that the show put on by his Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did nothing but create media attention in an effort to get a boost in the polls, although this was also a failure. We have done the study. We already received the CEOs of the major grocery stores at committee, and we got a taste of their total lack of concern. We have already seen how little they seemed to care about what we asked of them. I have said this before in the House and I will say it again. When we received the five CEOs of the grocery stores, they did not want to disclose their profits, which are astronomical and have only increased over previous years, despite everything they might tell us. They said they could not give us the numbers for competition reasons. I asked them whether they would give those numbers to the Competition Bureau, which would keep them confidential. There is a serious study to be done. All five grocers promised me they would do that. When I received the Competition Bureau's report, I noticed that, in the first few pages, the bureau lamented the fact that the companies had failed to provide their figures. How honest and transparent. I commend all the big grocers for that. I am asking for those numbers again in committee because the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has asked us to redo the work, so that we can be part of the show he is putting on to try to convince people that we are working on the price of groceries and that it is going to produce results. I am missing two, but those people all told me that they had submitted their figures. At the end of the study, we will probably still have five CEOs who promised me they would provide their numbers, the Competition Bureau saying it did not get them, and the same five CEOs telling me that they did provide them. That is the power that the government has over grocery prices. The problem goes deeper than that. These are private companies. The problem is related to competition. The situation we are in is due to an oligopoly where five companies control 80% of the market. They claim they do not talk to each other, which is doubtful. Since they cannot be accused of anything without proof, we have to believe them. That said, they must watch each other because, after COVID‑19, on the same day, they all cancelled the bonus pay they were giving their employees. If they are not talking to each other, they are closely watching each other. When we look at pricing, we can see that their prices are very similar. That is the problem. We also have an oligopoly situation in the oil and gas industry. Our Conservative friends speak out against the carbon tax. I understand that this has consequences for their Canadian operations. However, beyond that, these companies' exorbitant profits are on the rise. It is funny, because I do not hear any Conservative members speak out against that. I hear my NDP colleagues criticizing the big grocers for their profits. I understand that, and I do not disagree. They really are astronomical. Why do we not hear the Conservatives talk about profits? When we talk about the price of gas, when we talk about people in the regions who need to use more gas, why do the Conservatives stay mum on that? I would like the Conservatives to tell me about that. Earlier, we put the question to my esteemed colleague on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We asked her the question twice, and twice, not just once, we did not get an answer. I see colleagues I know well. If any of them would like to answer my question, I invite them to do so. I would be delighted. What we need is transparency, control and competition. We have asked for information on how prices are set. We have asked that more flexibility be given to indigenous communities in the north, where the cost of food is appallingly high compared to other regions. Measures could be taken to prevent food waste. For example, expiration dates could be reviewed. When I visited a yogurt factory and told the production manager that if the expiration date is November 3, I throw my yogurt away on November 4, he kind of laughed at me. There is nothing scientific about it; it is a legal protection that companies give themselves. Perhaps they could ease off a bit. We also need to find a way to redistribute surplus food. Some farmers have written to tell me that after their machinery finishes up in their market garden fields, some produce remains behind. Some great initiatives are under way, like the Maski Récolte project in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. Volunteers go into the fields and harvest what remains. However, this is not common practice across the territory. Why could we not, as a government, reimburse farmers for the cost of harvesting this food in their fields, provided they donate it to food banks? I think the effort might be worthwhile. Why should farmers have to pay to share this surplus food when they already work long hours with little or no support, and get ignored? My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue was with farmers from his region today who came to meet with the minister to explain the region's situation, the lack of support and lack of programs for farmers. The members of our agricultural community are not being supported; they are being left to endure terrible conditions. Then people wonder why the cost of food is rising. It all follows logically. Can we take care of our people and use our heads? We talked about plastics. We are in favour of protecting the environment and removing plastics, but it has to be done intelligently. It is like deciding to ban a pesticide. First, we have to know what the industry plans to replace it with and what impact that will have. Will the solution be worse than the pesticide being banned? Governments sometimes tend to bring in populist measures, especially when one pesticide name becomes more popular than another. These same governments accuse other political parties of being populist. Let me be clear. I am not saying that they are wrong when they accuse other political parties of being populist. What I am saying is that we must not get caught up in that. Let us be smart. Do members know what the report recommended? It recommended that the government reimburse the farmers who paid 35% tax on Russian fertilizer. That never happened and never will because they are incapable of doing it. They do not know who paid what. It is too complicated. They are just leaving the tax there. Canada is the only G7 country to do that. Everyone wants to help Ukraine, but can we be smart about it? The Russians are laughing at us and this is having no impact. Our farmers are paying the tax and we are unable to give them their money back. They were told not to worry about it, that the government was going to create a nice investment program for farm climate action and that the money would be put in there. The farmers were supposed to be happy about paying for a program. It it ridiculous. Then, people say that food is expensive. There are some unparliamentary words that come to mind, but with great restraint, I will refrain from uttering them. What is more—and this is what I want to denounce most loudly and clearly—the program addressed the liquidity issue. The government often talks about agriculture, but we cannot forget the agri-food industry, all the processing. A lot has been mechanized, industry plays a big part, and there is a chronic shortage of workers. The government does not help much, if at all. It is extremely complex. The report recommends making it easier for small businesses to access liquidity to stay afloat. All the government does now is lend them money from time to time; there is no direct support. However, there is a very simple show of support that could have been offered. In fact, I would like to hear my Conservative colleagues talk more often about deferring repayment of the emergency business account loan. I have not heard my friends talk about that for a long time. It seems to me that it is a logical, concrete measure. According to all of their speeches, it should be part of the picture. Why do they not support us in pressuring the government to ask for another year, especially for the agricultural sector? I am sure it is the same for them, but many small producers have come to see me to say that they are unable to pay back the loan and they need a break. In response, the government says it will give them 18 more days, after which they will have to take out a loan at the current interest rate of 7%, 8% or 9% to pay it back. Otherwise, the government, which is so generous, will turn the $20,000 subsidy into a loan and finance it at 5%. My, is that not generous? I may look a bit frustrated, but it seems to me that I keep repeating the same things over and over. A whip staffer told me that I had to come to the House because we were going to talk about a farming report. I have read the recommendations and it appears to be the same report we talked about last week. As members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we work hard and diligently. We come up with recommendations that make sense. Then, six months or one year later, we realize that our recommendations were not followed. Another situation comes up, and the same recommendation applies, so we make it again. We have been making a lot of the same recommendations for four years. I have been here for four years and we have been making these recommendations for four years. Can we make them happen? Can we get moving on this? We have mentioned liquidity in small businesses. What is happening with the Canada emergency business account is unacceptable, disgusting, even shocking. That members of the government are willing to see our small businesses, our SMEs, including restaurants, flounder and go bankrupt, is scandalous. The government is so intent on recovering $40,000 that it is going to end up with nothing once these businesses are bankrupt. Congratulations, what a success story. For four years now, the recommendations have been calling for an investment fund to expand infrastructure and modernize agri-food processing. When we look at the supply chain, we see that there is not enough investment in technology and infrastructure for businesses in Canada and Quebec. When governments refuse to invest over and over again, sooner or later, after 25 years, it becomes much more profitable for a company to shut down and start a new one. Where will the new one be located? Maple Leaf is a very good example. That company moved to the U.S. Are we going to wait for more of that? Can something constructive be done? It does not have to cost the government a lot of money, but we have to make investments easier for businesses. We talked about giving the Competition Bureau more authority to compel reluctant grocery store CEOs to hand over figures they were unwilling to provide, for example. When the bureau analyzes mergers, it has to stop rubber-stamping everything. At the moment, companies are allowed a market concentration of 30% to 35%. That means that three companies can control everything. That is still an oligopoly. The grocery industry has seen a series of acquisitions and mergers since the 1980s. It all happened at once. Oddly enough, no one, not a single political leader, had the foresight to say that the market would become too concentrated and that the big companies might fix prices. Members of government are only realizing this now, when five companies control 80% of the market. Then they call in the big CEOs and tell them that they will have to advertise discounts in their flyers, thinking the general public will swallow it. I hope that Canadians will not be fooled into accepting that. We also need to look at why there are only five companies. What are the obstacles? There are anti-competitive practices. For example, a grocery store has space in a shopping mall and demands that there be no other grocery stores in that mall. This needs to be illegal. Sometimes, grocery stores move, but the former landlord is still stuck for five years not being able lease space to another grocery store. Then we are surprised that there is no competition. It is the same with the labour shortage. How long has this been an issue? The government has had its head in the sand. Then it says there is a labour shortage, panics and wonders what to do. Actually, the Liberal government is not even doing that. They see that there is a labour shortage, but they figure that they can wait a while and it will pass. They simply close their eyes and wait. Weeks go by, and things do not get any better on their own. Then the government tries to do something. We must take action for the people and be serious about managing the situation. That is my message. Of course, I am sending it out to our Conservative colleagues, who are enjoying blocking everything for the sake of blocking everything, so they can say that the government does not work and then think they look brilliant, as a result. My message is also for the Liberal government. I am asking them to show they have vision and to listen to the opposition's proposals. I would also tell my friends at the NDP to stop voting for just anything on the expectation they will get a few goodies. We must all act together for the common good. This is not the first time I say this in the House, but an election should last a month and a half. During the four years in between, not two years or 18 months, we should all work together for the common good. To demonstrate that, I will stop four minutes before the end of my time. I hope that my colleague from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food will be grateful, even though I did not leave him much time. He needs to realize that this is huge, because I never have enough time.

2675 words

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

Dec/13/23 5:41:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, can the hon. member comment on the fact that a business, such as a trucking company that moves food, pays a price on pollution or a carbon tax but gets a rebate, and as an input cost, it also gets to deduct that from the amount it earns as a company? Does that not, in the member's opinion, really negate the argument that somehow a price on pollution is behind high food prices today?

77 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/13/23 5:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I do every time I am given this great opportunity, I want to say that Quebec is less familiar with the carbon tax because that is not how we do things. We participate in the carbon exchange with California. However, according to the numbers I have seen, the carbon tax is responsible for 0.15% of the inflation we are currently experiencing. Most of the inflation that we are seeing right now is caused by big businesses that are operating within an oligopoly and that are making exorbitant profits. That includes grocery stores, but also, and especially, oil companies. Of course, there is also the international context. If the government is collecting money, then I think it is also important to invest that money and to make it available to improve our technologies. The point of these taxes is not to make money or drive up the cost of living. It is to improve our environmental performance.

160 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Dec/13/23 5:43:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was passionate as usual. He is an excellent collaborator at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Indeed, last spring, the five big players in the food sector appeared before the committee, which had produced a report. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry thought it was a good idea to invite them back. We got the same answers. On Monday, when the CEO of Metro, Mr. La Flèche, was at the committee, something happened that I found interesting and I wonder if my colleague noticed it. My colleagues from Quebec say that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec; we could debate that at length because it applies indirectly. I asked the CEO if the carbon tax had any repercussions across Canada and if it had any major repercussions on the food sector and he said yes. I would like to know if my colleague took note of Mr. La Flèche's answer.

170 words