SoVote

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

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

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/13/23 5:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am very pleased that my colleague from Beauce answered the call I sent out to him during my speech. I appreciate it. I will explain something to him. In Quebec, we participate in the carbon exchange with California, and agricultural producers are currently at $471 million in costs. Farms in Quebec are exempt from buying carbon credits. However, they are impacted when they buy fuel from Quebec distributors. That is part of the carbon exchange and it will go on, even if the rest of Canada cancels its carbon tax. There is something I do not understand. It is unfortunate that this cannot be a five-minute discussion, because we would really be able to have some fun. I would like to ask my colleague from Beauce why he is defending the idea of scrapping the tax in the rest of Canada, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage, rather than speaking for Quebec. Why does he not talk about the need to extend the loan payment deadline for our small businesses? There are many small businesses in Beauce. I am sure he is concerned about what I am talking about. Can we give them some breathing room and some liquidity? That is just one example.

217 words

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

Dec/13/23 5:45:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do enjoy working with my fellow colleague on the agriculture committee. He will be familiar, from the multiple times that we have heard from grocery executives, that they are often talking about how they work in a low-margin industry. I think they present a slightly misleading argument. First of all, it should be pointed out that, in the last three years, their margins have doubled. If we look at it today, yes, when they are operating with a margin that is between 3% and 3.5%, it may look small. However, what people have to realize is that, when their gross revenues continue to climb, even though that margin may seem static, of course their profits will continue to rise as a result. I just wonder if my colleague can add a bit more to that because I have noticed a bit of defensiveness from the grocery CEOs and not enough attention is being paid to the fact that we do just have five companies controlling 80% of the market. Perhaps the member has some ideas on how we can try to turn that number around so that there is a bit more flexibility and competition there.

201 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/13/23 5:46:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague. Indeed, we do very good work together on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, what we are experiencing right now is quite ironic. People come to committee and tell us that they are not taking in any more money than they used to and that their profit margin is only 2%, yet when we look at the figures, we see that profit margins have skyrocketed. When we ask for details, they tell us it is because of the pharmaceuticals section. I would like to know what the percentage increase in profits is for the pharmaceuticals section. When committees conduct studies, they take them seriously. We call in all the stakeholders, unlike the minister who did not bring in everyone. He invited a few big companies, like Nestlé, and some CEOs. He did not invite agricultural producers or people from SMEs in the agri-food industry. He could not have had all the information. It is important to mention that. When we bring these people in, we realize that there can be a major imbalance in negotiations. A small grower can be told by a big grocer that he has to lower his price; otherwise, no one will buy from him. The small producer knows what that means: He is not going to be able to sell his product, especially if it is perishable. His hands are tied. I think that the government has a duty to poke its nose in and see what is going on. That is why the committee's report talked about having a sort of price-fixing observatory to see what is going on. A code of conduct is one way to regulate relations among the various players. We need to shine some light on the huge profits being made. Capitalism is a system that works, but not without regulation. Unbridled capitalism is not something we want. Although we seem to be gradually moving in that direction, I do not think it is what we want.

350 words

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

Dec/13/23 5:48:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, throughout the conversation, we have taken a look at our farmers and the huge operating cost increases we have seen. They have increased 21.2% in just 2022 alone, which is a huge increase, and that cost gets filtered down to people. I would be interested to hear from the member. I have heard from many people in my farming community, particularly now at Christmas. We are sitting here at Christmas time and families are creating Christmas goodies for their families. Over the years, people used to put butter in their Christmas goodies. Now they are using margarine. Part of that was the cost. Part of it was also with respect to possible issues with the product. Ultimately, the costs have continued. Now we see with margarine, a lot of it made with canola oil, the price has increased. I talked with a constituent just yesterday on the aspect of increased costs. I am interested to know how the member sees where that cost continually gets increased when moved from different products. The product being produced for our consumers is being belittled such that there is a huge impact on Canadians, and the huge taxes are being put upon them.

202 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/13/23 5:50:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. As I was saying earlier, we have to have another look at how we support farmers and have a serious review of the insurance programs. These programs were designed 20 or 25 years ago in a context where we had a bad year every six or seven years. These days, we have three bad years in a row and we do not know what next year will bring. The people from Abitibi that we received today talked to us about forest fires, drought, spring frost and a host of factors that we can no longer predict. He have to help them. Before I finish, I will share a statistic. In Quebec, 44% of our farmers have another job because they do not earn enough income on the farm. That is not normal.

140 words

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

Dec/13/23 5:51:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be standing up today to speak to this, but I want to express that there is a little part of me that is also disappointed. I am always in favour of discussing the great work that happens at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but it needs to be said that, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-58, which I think is quite an important landmark piece of legislation. It is something that my party proudly supports. That bill is designed, of course, to make sure that collective bargaining is not going to be undermined by the use of scab or replacement labour. However, the Conservatives decided to move a concurrence debate on yet another committee report. When we look at the Conservatives' history with labour relations, we can understand why they do not want to speak about Bill C-58. When they were in government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they were not afraid to use back-to-work legislation. Indeed, when two Conservative members started speaking on Bill C-58 at second reading, they did not touch on the substance of the bill. I do not think they had anything to contribute. I do not even know if they actually support the bill. A party that is trying to rebrand itself as the party of workers now does not want to debate a bill that is protecting organized labour and the collective bargaining rights of workers. I will let Canadians make their own judgment on what that is all about. Turning to the report that we are discussing today, the grocery affordability report from the agriculture committee, I am proud to say that this report issued from a motion that I brought at committee. I want to thank all members of that committee for granting a unanimous vote; I think they were feeling the political and public pressure of the moment from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who had been feeling the pinch over the last two years on the spiralling, out-of-control grocery prices. We know these prices have been going up higher and faster than the general rate of inflation. As a part of this, we have had the opportunity to question the grocery CEOs. We had them as a part of the original study, which we are doing now. The agriculture committee is now revisiting this issue, and we have had a chance to reinterview the CEOs. When we talked to the grocery executives, whether it was Michael Medline or Mr. Weston of Loblaws—

434 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/13/23 5:53:58 p.m.
Watch

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment. There is a lot of noise in the room. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford may continue his intervention.

30 words