Debates of Oct. 6th, 2022

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the CRA. Could he please explain to the House how he is ensuring that terrorists in this country are not funnelling money to support other countries? What is the CRA doing about that?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency has robust measures in place to make sure that terrorist financing does not take place in our country. We constantly survey these issues to make sure there are no loopholes in that system.

If we are talking about the issue on the floor of the House today, which is making sure that we do not have tax evasion, we could look at the Canada Revenue Agency's tax record. In just the investments we have put in to the CRA since we formed government, billions of dollars have come back from individuals and companies that have put their money into tax havens. The CRA is doing its job. It has a great track record on that issue. Not only do we not stand for any financing of terrorist organizations in Canada, we are going to make sure that tax cheats pay their fair share.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to hear my colleague say whether he does or does not support the objective of the motion moved by the NDP.

The fundamental question being asked is the following: Are we prepared, as a state and as a government, to do more to secure the revenue we need from big corporations who are getting rich at our expense? That is the principle of the motion.

I find that the government boasts about its results and that my colleague is exaggerating. When he says that Canada is doing a lot to crack down on tax havens, he believes it. In reality, the federal government is quite complacent.

In effect, it has been giving the Canada Revenue Agency more and more money to tackle the problem with little to show for it. The CRA has only gone after a few million dollars.

Is the government prepared to do what the motion is calling for in order to ensure tax fairness?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We strongly believe that businesses and Canadians must pay their fair share of taxes. That is the basic principle.

Let us talk about the results achieved by the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, with the investments made by our government after 10 years under the Conservatives. We invested in the CRA, which has recovered not millions, not hundreds of millions, but billions of dollars from those who did not pay their taxes.

In our 2022 budget, we asked banks and insurance companies to pay more.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege for me to rise in the House, and I am pleased to speak to today's NDP motion.

This motion was moved by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and he knows how much I respect his work. However, I do want to share some concerns I have regarding the wording of the motion.

I think it is important for Canadians following the debate in the House to understand that this opposition motion does not compel the government to take any action. It is simply something for members of the House to reflect on.

I am not sure whether today's opposition motion is strictly necessary. Some key elements of the motion were adopted yesterday at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food through Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois amendments. We know that affordability and inflation are very important to Canadians right now.

I am not opposed to the idea of looking into food prices in this country. However, I do believe that the text of this motion puts the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. In my view, this motion alleges price-fixing occurs before the committee can do a proper inquiry and before we have the opportunity to hear from industry officials about the possibility we are looking at the unintended consequences of the circumstances.

As I mentioned, I do not have a whole lot of contention as I stand before the House today, but the text of the motion is almost suggesting this is a fait accompli and absolutely real, and I think there are important questions that need to be asked. However, I do have some concerns about the fact that the motion is almost saying that this is absolutely happening before we have even had the inquiry at the agriculture and agri-food committee. I know that was expressed yesterday by some of my colleagues who sit on that committee.

I also want to take a moment to examine specific provisions of the motion. Under paragraph (b), there is a mention of “an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed”. It goes on to suggest that perhaps there is something that should be done to control the prices, and although I did not have the opportunity to ask this question specifically to my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I want to know whether that is suggesting the government has a role to play in setting prices.

This is not something we have seen since, I believe, World War II, when the government did intervene in those circumstances to set maximum price caps. The text of the motion does not come right out and say it, but “an affordable and fair food strategy” could include, I presume, regulatory measures. That would be a question I would have for my hon. colleague. Perhaps, if he has the opportunity today in the House, he could address that, or perhaps some of his NDP colleagues who know could raise the point of whether they see that as a specific measure.

Yes, it has been done before, but the government should be very cautious that it is absolutely necessary to completely intervene, to set prices in a market, until such time that we have real evidence that the allegations being put forward in the text of the motion today are absolutely true.

Paragraph (c) talks about “greedflation”, and I just want to go on record that this is not what the committee agreed to yesterday. Yes, the key elements of the hon. member's motion were adopted, but there was a desire, particularly from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, to look at the issue.

He rightfully pointed out that, before we get to the point of saying this is greed inflation, we should actually call the witnesses to bring forward evidence and hear that before we simply say that it is indeed the case.

The committee has agreed to look at inflation in food prices in the entire food retail sector, not just the grocery sector, to be able to ask what questions can be put forward in co-operation with the food retail sector to help support it and avoid large increases in food prices.

I am glad the motion mentions the Competition Bureau. I think it is a very important organization that already has the tools needed to study these issues.

I have concerns about the capacity of our agriculture committee to be able to get to the bottom of exactly what might be happening. Yes, we can come in and ask questions, but I do not know if there are any forensic accountants who might sit on the agriculture committee. We will ask those questions, but it is ultimately the Competition Bureau that has the tools and expertise to be able to examine whether or not some of the allegations that are being made are indeed happening.

It calls into question whether there is anti-competitive behaviour or pricing fixing happening, because the Competition Bureau, as far as I know, has not intervened to date. However, I think it is an important question that all members of this House should reflect on.

I think that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford missed an opportunity to raise and mention the importance of the national school food program. We all know that affordability is a top issue right now for many Canadians. This is a program that could make sure we have healthy food in school, ensuring that children who might be living in families who do not have a whole lot of economic means can be supported. It was announced in budget 2021, and I would have liked to see the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford raise it and encourage the government to expedite that allocation of money and work with the provinces and territories to roll it out.

The motion also does not call on ways in which the grocery sector itself might be able to help mitigate food prices by implementing a price freeze. I understand it has happened elsewhere and there have been some retail grocers in other jurisdictions around the world that have, by their own will, actually implemented a price freeze. There might be differing opinions on whether or not that is best public policy, but the member failed to mention it in the text of his motion today.

I will go on record and say that I have some concern about the way in which the NDP is bringing forward and villainizing corporate leadership. Now, before my friends from the NDP start screaming that I am a friend of big business in Canada and standing up for my corporate friends, it is not that. It is that we want to have a level of decorum in our public policy and in our politics in this country that does not simply make vast statements.

I read into the record the other day a Facebook post from the leader of the NDP, which said that CEOs in this country are rigging the system, that they are stealing Canadians' wealth. Boy, what an allegation that is. In making it, he is villainizing an entire group of individuals who serve in corporate leadership in this country. I hope the position of the NDP is not simply that every corporate leader in this country is corrupt, because that does nothing to unify the country. It creates a further divide—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members who are coming into the chamber right now to please keep their voices down. There is quite bit of a hum coming across, and I would ask members to keep their voices down.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I can see why the House is filling up. It is because I have the opportunity to have the floor, and people are very interested in what I have to say.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I really appreciate the opportunity to get to engage with so many of my colleagues, and I look forward to their questions momentarily.

However, I think that if NDP members want to put forward more constructive debates in this House, they need to stop villainizing corporate leadership and start putting forward policies. If they want to tax Canadian high-income earners more and put forward other pieces, that is fine and that is their ideological position, but they should stop villainizing individuals who lead corporate entities in this country. It is not helpful, and it is not really going to help us get to a better system and better policies for all Canadians.

I will leave it at that, and I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, people are clearly frustrated that they are paying more for food, but the CEOs of big food chains are making big profits on the backs of people, and we are not villainizing these people.

For the seven years that the Liberals have been in power, this government has protected the profits of the wealthiest by refusing to toughen the Competition Act to punish the CEOs of the big companies that are overcharging consumers and agricultural producers. Why do the Liberals refuse to ban the price-gouging strategies of wealthy CEOs at the expense of the people?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, whether it is the grocery code of conduct that the Minister of Agriculture is working with industry to be able to move forward or whether it is putting excess profit taxes as we have on the banking sector, there are a number of ways in which this government is able to move to make sure there is equity in how we tax Canadians and to ask Canadians who have more means to give a bit more to help support public programs that matter for all.

I know my ideological viewpoint may not completely align with that of the member opposite. As I have said in my remarks, I would like us to have an investigation before we simply put forward an assertion that there is complete corporate greed in this country. Let us examine the facts. Let us go before the committee before we simply make those allegations in the House.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is some irony today in the NDP's signing a deal to support three years of Liberal budgets, sight unseen, and then putting forward a motion to call for additional measures that were not contained in the New Democrats' coalition agreement.

For the Liberal member who just spoke, is not the best way to address affordability simply to allow people to keep more of their own money? Would the member acknowledge that with cancelling the scheduled tax increases for next year, the tripling of the carbon tax and the increase in payroll tax, rather than the government taking more of their money to spend for them, it would be better to let people keep more of their own money and choose for themselves how they are going to spend it?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the government has done, since day one, when we lowered taxes and allowed Canadians of lower and middle income to keep more of the money they earn, and increased taxes on those who have the most money to give into the system. The member voted against that motion.

The member speaks about carbon pricing in this country. It is going to be tripling by 2030, not overnight, and the money actually goes back to Canadians and to businesses, so it is a false narrative that the Conservatives are putting forward. Best of all, they do not have a plan on climate. They do not put forward any meaningful policies to reduce emissions. It is a false narrative, and it is extremely problematic.

I look forward to the day when the Conservatives look forward to a pricing system that is market based and can move forward. That is what the former leader of the official opposition did in the last election. I look forward to seeing what the new leader of the official opposition does in the next election.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that they should not be heckling or trying to answer or making comments while someone else has the floor. It is not very respectful.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, today's motion follows a report from Canadians for Tax Fairness that shows that some of the wealthiest corporations in the country quietly avoided $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone. Meanwhile, however, the CRA continues to chase low-income Canadians in my riding, as well as in the member's riding of Kings—Hants, for example, for a couple of thousand dollars in CERB repayments. What can the member do to help refocus where the CRA should be, which is on this $30 billion in tax loopholes?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to read the report the member is referencing, but I will say that the government has invested in CRA resources to be able to tackle offshore accounts and tax evasion. It has brought in nearly $4 billion of additional revenue. I take notice that there is more work that the government can do in that domain, but these are important elements that we have done concretely.

Is there more work to be done? Sure, but we also have to balance that against global competitiveness at the same time. Sometimes the policies of the NDP or the Green Party would just lead to more offshoring of taxes. Just to reference the Laffer curve, if their income taxes or corporate taxes are too high, companies will choose to do business or leave their money elsewhere. That is an element we have to be mindful of when we are devising public policy in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is still quite a bit of chatting going on by members of the official opposition. I am about to call up one of their members, and I would hope that they are going to be respectful and are not going to be chatting while that is being done, or when others are going to be speaking in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to talk about food inflation, which is at its highest in 40 years.

I will talk about the price increases for a few food items. The price of fish has risen by 10.4%; the price of butter, by 16.9%; the price of eggs, by 10.9%; the price of pasta, by 32%; and the price of coffee, by 14.2%. These are only a few examples of the rising prices Canadians are paying for food. The poorest Canadians are the hardest hit. It is only appropriate that we address this problem.

What are the causes of food inflation? The cost of government is increasing the cost of living. The $500-billion inflationary deficit is increasing the cost of the goods we purchase and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes are increasing production costs for our businesses and farmers, which further contributes to the increase in prices. The more the government spends, the more expensive it gets. This is the result of the costly coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The solution is to undo the problems the Liberals have caused.

First, we must limit government spending by passing a law that requires politicians to save one dollar for each new dollar spent. This law used to exist elsewhere in the past. In the 1990s, such a law enabled the U.S. government to eliminate its deficit and pay back $400 billion of its debt while creating jobs. After the law was repealed, they started to accumulate deficits once again. This shows that we must impose legal limits on politicians’ spending. Otherwise, they are undisciplined, and consumers pay the price.

Second, we must eliminate inflationary taxes. This government, with the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, wants to triple the carbon tax on farmers, small businesses and truckers, which will obviously drive up the cost of food. Food does not come from the store, but from farms and farmers. In addition, it is transported by truckers. Every time we increase taxes on these people, consumers pay more.

Since farmers can no longer bear the costs, we are importing food from other countries that are creating far more pollution. We would be able to produce the food here, but the taxes on farmers increase costs and make it impossible to produce food in Canada. We should eliminate these taxes to encourage food production here in Canada. We have the best farmers in the world, and we should be able to feed ourselves.

Third, we must eliminate the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent the production of food and other essential goods, as well as the red tape and delays that prevent the construction of housing units, energy production and, of course, food production. Instead of printing money like this government and the Bank of Canada are doing, we should be producing what money can buy: more food, more housing units and more energy, here in Canada. That means that we have to eliminate obstacles, make it easier to get a construction permit and allow people who work hard to achieve their goals.

Rather than simply printing money, let us produce what we need. This policy will make life more affordable and Canada more self-sufficient. That is the goal we will be pursuing as Conservatives.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills, Madam Speaker.

The New Democrats point out in this motion that corporations should pay what they owe. We agree with that. They say there should be increased penalties for price-fixing. We agree with that, too. They think that the agriculture committee should study high food prices and whether there is something called “greedflation”, including inviting grocery store CEOs to the committee. We agree with that, too. That is all very reasonable. Unfortunately, in some ways, it does not go far enough, because they have a very limited view of greed. They think that it only exists in the private sector. They ignore in the motion government greed.

The New Democrats have this fantastical view of human nature. I would not say that it is optimistic or pessimistic; it is both at the same time. They think that human beings are angels when they work for the state, but demons when they work in the private sector, as though greed is part of human nature only in the free market. However, when these same people who work for a company then transfer over to work for a bureaucracy or as politicians, all of a sudden they are purified of all greed and transformed into an entirely different being.

The reality is that human nature is what it is, warts and all, good and bad. There is greed and that greed exists in government as well. When the government expands itself vastly faster than the economy, increasing costs by $500 billion in the last two years alone, $200 billion of which had nothing to do whatsoever with COVID, and when the government, against the warnings of the Conservatives, gives corporations wage subsidies, even though they can afford to pay out dividends to their shareholders and bonuses to their executives, the government is engaging in feeding that greed.

When the government printed $400 billion, causing inflation to spiral out of control to the benefit of the super-rich, who saw their assets inflate, but to the disadvantage of the poor, who then lost purchasing power and watched house prices go out of reach so they could never get out of their parents' basements or out of that 400-square-foot apartment, it was government greed that had caused that transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have yachts.

I just wish once in a while the NDP, which believes in the endless expansion of the state, would acknowledge the roll that government greed has played in plaguing the country with the highest inflation in 40 years. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. Half a trillion dollars in new inflationary spending has bid up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. The inflationary taxes have bid up the cost for businesses and farmers to produce those goods. The more Liberals and New Democrats spend, the more things cost. That is how we got into this mess in the first place.

The Liberals and the NDP, the costly coalition, want to double down on the problem by further increasing the costs on the backs of Canadians by tripling the carbon tax, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers. We cannot tax farmers, truckers and grocers without having those costs pass on to the people at the end of the grocery aisle. We know they will pay those higher prices; we know they already have.

Conservatives say: enough. The time has come to cap government spending and cut government waste so we can phase out the inflationary deficits and taxes, cancel the plan to triple the carbon tax and, instead, deploy technology to make green alternative energy more affordable. Let us bring down the cost of energy, rather than bring it up.

Speaking of which, let us remove the government gatekeepers who make this the 64th-ranked country in the world when it comes to getting a building permit. Sixty-three other countries give them faster. What does that mean? It means that farmers can put up their barns faster. It means that mines, which would produce lithium, cobalt, copper and other minerals for green electricity, must wait longer and, therefore, costs more money. It means that producing clean, green Canadian nuclear energy, etc., could be coming onto the market faster.

Let us get these gatekeepers out of the way, speed up the production and unleash the mighty force of our free enterprise system, so instead of creating cash, we create more of what cash buys and unleash the production of a cleaner, more affordable economy for all our hard-working people.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way did say that he felt this motion did not go far enough, so I assume that means he supports it. I cannot imagine he is against having CEOs pay the money that they owe.

He has made it very clear that he is not against having a fair and affordable food strategy. Obviously, his members have already said that they would be supporting the study in agriculture.

Does he feel that asking CEOs to pay their fair share is reasonable or does he think that all men should be told that they can go their own way?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, CEOs should pay their fair share and pay what they owe, as the motion says. We believe in tax enforcement and we believe the government has done a terrible job cracking down on those who hide their money in offshore accounts and refuse to pay what they owe. The Conservatives do support that, to clearly answer the member's question.

What we do not support is forcing working-class people to pay higher taxes. We do not support higher energy costs. We do not believe that consumers in Vancouver should pay more than $2.40 a litre. We do not support the plan to triple the carbon tax on home-heating oil for Newfoundlanders and to further drive the people of eastern Canada, 40% of whom are in energy poverty, into more poverty still.

We believe that life should be affordable for all of them, and that is why this has not gone far enough.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, this morning, some very disturbing news has been reported, in particular, that misogynistic tags were being used on the Leader of the Opposition's YouTube channel to attract certain individuals to his channel, in particular those who would sympathize with these misogynistic terms.

I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would like to explain to the House and to Canadians his position on this and perhaps what he will do to ensure this does not continue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the official opposition leader to respond, however, I do want to remind members to stay relevant to the motion before the House.

The leader of the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we on this side reject all misogyny and all acts of extremism, and we will always stand up to that over here.

I will give the House an example of why the subject of food affordability is so important, because the people who are the least advantaged in our society end up paying the most. Those with the least means, with the least resources, end up spending a larger share of their income on food. The very wealthy can spend a smaller share of income on food. That is why those people are not as affected by inflation.

Two years ago, I warned that we would have an inflation crisis if the government continued with its inflationary taxes and deficits, and that is exactly where we are today.

We, as Conservatives, will reverse the policies that got us here, to make the dollar go further for everybody.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like the House to get down to business, to work like the mature adults we are supposed to be, rather than to repeat slogans and idiocies all day.

With respect to the carbon tax, is my colleague aware that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is currently working intelligently to create exemptions where necessary, but that, overall, the carbon tax is necessary? There has to be a price on pollution if we are to take a different path.

My colleague mentioned the increase in the price of coffee in his speech as if it were a terrible thing. Is he aware that analysts are predicting that the price of coffee will not only remain high, but that, like chocolate, it will become the luxury product it once was? That is not because of the big bad Liberals, the big bad NDP and others, it is because of global warming. Is he aware of the aphid problems in our crops this year caused by global warming?

Can we please get down to business and work on climate change?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, neither the Bloc Québécois, nor the Liberals, nor the NDP have a plan to deal with climate change. They have a plan to increase taxes. Since the implementation of the carbon tax, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets have never been met. It simply has not worked.

The hon. member says there will be exceptions, but when? We introduced bills to exempt farmers years ago, but that never happened. We cannot trust the current government or the costly coalition to make it happen.