Debates of Oct. 6th, 2022

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it a difficult task to follow the leader of the official opposition, but I will do my best to carry on with our message about the NDP opposition day motion, which I also agree does not go far enough. It does not put a lot of the blame on the inflationary crisis we face where most of it belongs, which is on government spending.

We cannot say that CEOs, corporate Canada or global companies are driving inflation when we have a federal government that has put in half a trillion dollars in spending, which is having a significant impact on the prices that Canadians are facing all across the board.

I find it interesting that we see a bit of schizophrenia with our NDP colleagues, where with every opportunity they have to support increased spending and the tripling of the carbon tax, they vote with the government, yet their motion today attempts to try to make life more affordable for Canadians.

In question period yesterday, the leader of the NDP had concerns about rising gas prices, especially in his province of B.C. where fuel has hit $2.40 a litre. That is exactly what Liberal and NDP policy wants to achieve. It wants us to have higher fuel prices. It wants to force us to drive our cars less. I am sure that works in many of my colleagues' urban communities. Some days they can park their cars and take public transit or ride their bikes. My riding is almost 30,000 square kilometres.

Public transit does not exist in my riding. My constituents must drive their car. They must drive long distances to work. They must heat their homes and their barns in -40°C weather in January. These are the facts of life. These are the necessities of life. These are not extravagant choices; they have to do that. In response to that, our Liberal colleagues, supported by the NDP, want to triple the carbon tax.

I am going to focus a little on the agricultural sector and the impact that is having on rural economies and rural Canadians. I would argue that rural Canadians, especially our farmers, producers and ranchers, pay the carbon tax over and over again.

It was interesting to hear my Liberal colleague say that while farmers were price-takers, the carbon tax did not have an impact on the price of food. It is true that they are price-takers. However, when we triple the carbon tax, we triple the price of fuel. We saw the price of fertilizer go up 100% last year. That does not include the 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia and Belarus. That impacts hauling their grain, hauling their cattle and transportation to the terminal. Every single time they are paying that carbon tax over and over again.

The company or rail company hauling their grain passes that carbon tax on to the consumer. Every time those prices go up on those transportation or commodity services, it impacts the price of food. That is why we have seen the cost of groceries go up more than 10%, the highest rate of inflation in more than 40 years.

Therefore, I understand my NDP colleagues when they say that the CEOs in Canada should pay their fair share. I agree with that. Every Canadian should pay their fair share. The Liberal government has been in power for seven years. If there are loopholes, it should be holding taxpayers accountable for paying their fair share. Obviously, it has not done that. However, to shift the blame from where it lies to other parts of the economy is disingenuous.

An interesting statistic came up yesterday at the agriculture committee, and I want to highlight it. We heard it from my Bloc colleague, who I have a lot of respect for as well. Climate change is real, but to put the price of fighting climate change on the backs of Canadian farmers is not fair. Let us be real here, as my colleague was saying. Let us have an honest conversation about this. GHG intensity in agriculture is about 28% globally. What it is in Canada? It is 8%. We are tenfold better than any other country in the world when it comes to GHG emissions and intensity in the agriculture sector in Canada.

With respect to the fertilizer issue, the Liberal government wants to see a 30% reduction in fertilizer use. As I said, grocery prices have gone up 10%. If the Liberals follow through with this policy, all I can say to Canadian consumers is “you ain't seen nothing yet”. When farmers have to see their yields go down between 30% and 50%, depending on what the commodity is, that means significantly lower yields and significantly higher grocery prices. That has nothing to do with the CEO of Loblaws. That has exactly to do with government policy put forward by the Liberals.

Again, what makes that so frustrating is they are saying to Canadian farmers that they are not part of the solution; they are the problem. Canadian farmers are 50% to 70% more efficient in their fertilizer use than any other country on planet earth. Instead of congratulating them for that and going around the world saying that we are the gold standard and here is where everybody else in the world should go, we are apologizing and dragging our farmers down to where everybody else is. That is the wrong philosophy and certainly the wrong policy.

All that is doing is making our farmers worse off. It is also more harmful to the environment, and food prices will go up. It is a triple whammy. Instead of doing the right thing and being a champion and advocate for Canadian farmers, we are going in the exact opposite direction.

There are other policies the Liberals have put forward that have made the cost of groceries and the cost of food go up, and I really want to focus on this part. I am going to backtrack a little to the carbon tax again. My colleague from the Bloc brought that up. In the agriculture committee, we are talking about Bill C-234, a private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax on farms. This is a critical piece of legislation that would ensure our farmers are able to remain competitive on the global stage. However, the Liberals are arguing that we do not need Bill C-234 because farmers get a rebate through Bill C-8.

We now know from Finance Canada officials that the average farmer will get about $800 back a year through that rebate. We also know that farmers pay close to $50,000 a year on average in carbon tax. I asked a representative from Finance Canada how they could argue that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral when they were admitting that the average farmer is getting about $800 to $860 back. His answer was that if we made it revenue-neutral, urban Canadians would have to subsidize that. Okay. He was telling me that rural Canadians were subsidizing the carbon tax and wealth redistribution for urban Canadians. That is what he was telling me.

That is not what the Liberal policy on the carbon tax was. They said it was going to be revenue-neutral and that eight out of 10 families would get more back than they paid. That is baloney. Rural Canadians are suffering and certainly paying significantly more in carbon tax than other Canadians. That is not what the Liberals are selling. Again, it is Liberal policy that is driving inflation and driving up the price of food.

It is going to get worse. Although we had a bit of a win this spring when we got the Liberals to back down on front-of-pack labelling on ground beef and pork, they are still going ahead with front-of-pack labelling on most other products. The cost of that is going to be $1.8 billion to the industry. Who do we think pays for that? I can guarantee that Galen Weston at Loblaws is not covering that cost. I can guarantee that French's ketchup is not covering that cost. They are passing that right on to the consumer.

Again, a Liberal policy that no one asked for and serves very little purpose is going to be passing on $2 billion in costs to the Canadian consumer for no reason. That is not to mention that the United States has already identified this policy as a trade irritant. Therefore, not only are we upsetting Canadian consumers, but we are also upsetting our number one trading partner, which is looking for every excuse possible to fight back against Canadian trade.

In conclusion, I appreciate what my NDP colleague is trying to achieve with this motion, and there are many portions of it that we agree with. Certainly CEOs should pay their fair share and affordable food should be available for every Canadian, but the facts are the facts. Inflation is being driven by ideological, activist policy by the Liberal government. That should be the focus of the House.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share with the member a lot of his concerns about what farmers are dealing with in this day and age and about the inflation that is putting pressure on all Canadians. However, one thing we are asking for in this motion today is to put a tax on the excess profits of big companies. Big companies like Loblaws and Sobeys have made windfall profits while Canadians are suffering. There are also the big oil and gas companies. They talk forever about the carbon tax on the Conservative side, but they never mention the huge profits that oil and gas companies are making, which cause 10 times the increase in gas prices than the carbon tax.

I am wondering if he could comment on the comment the CEO of Shell made yesterday. He is saying to please tax Shell; it made too much money. He wants to help Canadians. When will the Conservatives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will get the hon. member to respond.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, we agree with the portion of the motion about CEOs paying their fair share. As we said, every Canadian should pay their fair share.

His colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, in his opening speech asked why the Conservatives are moaning about taxes all the time. Well, what our constituents are telling us every single day is that the tax increases by the Liberal government are punishing.

To answer my colleague's question, how is increasing a tax on Loblaws and Sobeys going to reduce food prices? Does he think that by increasing taxes on Galen Weston, he is going to turn around and reduce food prices?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite. We have met, and I know his riding very well. It is a riding in which my Alberta family lives.

I have made my career in Hamilton for more than 20 years, and I have heard from the residents of Hamilton Mountain that they are concerned with the cost of living. It is tough to go to the grocery stores today.

I am wondering if the member opposite would agree that it is good to have this debate today and it is good the NDP has put forward this motion, because it is a complicated issue. Here we are, and it is important to have this time in the House to debate these issues.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would argue that the Conservatives, especially under the leader of the official opposition, have been talking about affordability every day in this House for the last two weeks. I do appreciate the motion brought forward by the NDP, but it is the Conservative Party that has addressed and highlighted that Liberal policy, Liberal tax hikes and planned new tax hikes are making life unaffordable for Canadians.

Grocery prices are up 10%. I did not even talk about interest rates, which have gone up several points and have put thousands of family farms on the brink of possible foreclosure. I cannot imagine what that is doing to many Canadians. I have had constituents in my riding say that interest rates have made their mortgage go up $500 a month. Not many Canadians have the resources to cover that new cost.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Drummond for a brief question.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Foothills for his speech. It can be a bit ironic to hear the Conservatives go to bat for regular people and lament the burden they bear as the cost of consumer goods rises across the board. However, when anyone suggests that big corporations, such as web giants, should pay their fair share, the Conservatives waste no time interfering with every process and shooting down everyone's suggestions.

I think about tax havens a lot. The Liberal government is under fire, and rightly so, for supporting tax havens and even creating some. However, in 2009, it was the Harper government that legalized 18 new tax havens simply by passing regulations allowing people not to pay taxes on profit generated in tax havens when they bring that money back to Canada. I know the Conservatives really want to fight inflation and bring more money back—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question was supposed to be brief, but the hon. member took a whole minute, and that was all the time that was left.

The hon. member for Foothills has the floor, but I see the hon. member for Drummond rising on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I simply want to point out that we made good use of the time allowed during questions and comments.

With all due respect, it might be appropriate to respect the time for questions. That would allow all parties to get a turn to speak.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I invite the hon. member to have that discussion with his whip.

I would simply add that I did mention that it should be a brief question, because there was only one minute left. The hon. member used up almost the whole minute. This means we have no time left, but I will give the hon. member for Foothills the opportunity to answer.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a brief answer, we are not the government. The Liberals are. If the member has an issue with tax havens, he should take it up with the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my very esteemed colleague from Joliette.

I first want to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for raising this very important matter in the House, as the price of groceries is a concern for many of our constituents.

We see that food inflation is higher than inflation in general. Naturally, there are some distinctions to be made. I will refer to what my colleague from Kings—Hants said earlier about that. That will also touch on the question that I asked the Leader of the Opposition earlier.

It would be good if we could try to work diligently and not take a populist attitude one way or the other.

As I just said, the motion is important. The Bloc Québécois supports it. I believe that this is an issue that we must deal with. It is why, when we talked about it yesterday, we approved the motion. For those who perhaps were not here earlier, I am informing the House that this issue will be studied thoroughly at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I have to say that the changes I wanted to make by amending the motion yesterday were not intended to block the motion, but only to avoid drawing any conclusions about the study before the study is actually done.

I find myself facing a similar problem this morning. It is the new fashion in the House to pun on the word “inflation”. There is one pun I cannot mention because it contains the Prime Minister's first name, but there are others, like “greedflation”. There will probably be three or four more by the end of the week. Puns do not solve our problems, and neither does repeating the same word three times 45 times a day. I do not see what that will do in the House, apart from lowering the tone of debate.

However, studying this issue and looking into the huge profits being made right now by the major agri-food distributors will have an effect.

It is an important issue, and that is why the Bloc Québécois will support the motion. However, it needs to be done in a smart way. My colleague who moved the motion referred to this earlier, saying that if he is drawing attention to the matter, that means that there is a real issue. The Retail Council of Canada wrote to us to say that we should be careful how we deal with the matter, and I do not think that these people are illiterate.

We are all for examining the question, but let us do so properly. That is what we are being asked to do, and I think that it is also our duty as elected members.

I have no bias one way or another. I am biased in favour of the less fortunate, who are having a hard time buying groceries right now.

I will try not to get upset, but there are a lot of people in this House who say a lot but do not do anything. They are not getting anything done.

Why has old age security still not been increased for seniors starting at age 65? The 338 members of the House are well aware of the insanely high prices in grocery stores these days.

We are privileged to earn a good salary, so it does not bother us too much, but when I go to the grocery store, I think about ordinary people who are also paying income tax.

I think about the constant audits of ordinary citizens. I just want the House to know that people in long-term care facilities are getting audited. They are asked to submit the receipt from the facility. They submit the receipt, but that is not enough: Now they need a report filled out by their doctor to prove that they need to be in a long-term care facility. The next word that comes to mind is unparliamentary, but I am speaking as a caregiver. However, let us move on.

In the meantime, nothing is being done about tax havens. We are talking about billions of dollars each year. We have been condemning this for years. Why are we not doing anything about tax havens? We could at least try to recoup half the money, or a quarter, something like that. Then the government could redistribute the money to the poorest citizens. Once again, let us do this the smart way.

Is it really smart to pass a bill that proposes a $650 dental benefit even if a family will only be charged $100? The money will indeed be redistributed to families, but will dental care really be improved?

That is what I am urging us to do as members of Parliament. We must be rigorous and wise. We must also be aware that inflation is widespread for a number of reasons. COVID-19 has destabilized supply chains. Transportation costs have exploded exponentially. There is a labour shortage that is completely mind-boggling.

We are talking about food, so let us talk about it. People are complaining that food is expensive. However, this government is preventing farmers from working because it cannot be bothered to approve visas for foreign workers. It stubbornly insists on redoing labour market impact assessments even though Quebec has already done them. Those assessments take eight, 10, 12 months.

In the meantime, crops stay in the ground. They end up being plowed under. Asparagus fields are being mowed down because the workers have not arrived, not because they do not want to come, not because there are no workers, not because the farmers failed to plan a year in advance, but because the government is incompetent when it comes to approving these visas.

Obviously, food costs more because of all that. It is not just the fault of the big bad grocery stores, although that is part of it. We know that 80% of the retail market is controlled by five companies. It is a real problem. Various groups have been bringing this to our attention for several years. That is why an effort is currently being made to establish a grocery code of conduct as a way to prevent abusive practices.

For instance, a large retailer may require a small supplier to supply a certain amount or it will no longer purchase from that supplier. The small supplier supplies the amount requested, but if that amount does not sell, the retailer often demands that the supplier reimburse it and come collect its merchandise. Is that fair? I do not think so.

Are all corporate executives bad apples? I do not think so. That is why we need to stay objective. That is why the study in committee will be essential. I pledge to study this issue carefully, with one goal in mind, namely to protect our constituents from runaway inflation. I will ensure that people will not have to choose between groceries, drugs and gas.

Everybody here needs to wake up and see the light. I spoke about this earlier when I was asking the Leader of the Opposition a question. I say “see the light” because some people here are in the dark. If they need a light, I can get them one.

I am talking about climate change. We are experiencing droughts, flooding and increasingly violent winds. There were extremely violent winds this spring in Quebec. These may not be the kinds of major disasters that make the headlines for three weeks at a time, but hundred-year-old maple stands were destroyed. How long will it take to replace them? It will take a hundred years.

A shortage of products is inevitable. This year, vegetable growers are dealing with an epidemic of aphids, which are not usually an issue with vegetable crops. Normally, they are a problem for soybean farmers. Because of climate change and warmer-than-normal air currents, harvests have deteriorated. This will result in further losses, as fruits and vegetables remain in the fields.

Last spring, I spoke about bees. Record numbers of bees have died because of climate warming. The colony-killing parasite had more time to reproduce and cause more damage. The government needs to smarten up and do something about climate change.

I wish people would stop telling me that we need to eliminate the taxes aimed at fighting climate change. I will repeat what I said to my Conservative colleague: We can be smart about this and make exceptions. Grain drying could be exempt, for example, because there is no alternative. The government is capable of being smart. Let us all be smart. Let us take action.

We are going to study the issue of grocery prices. If we uncover any abuse, we will have to get tough.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Canadians deserve answers. We deserve to learn why corporate greed is protected while Canadians pay more for food. This motion is a way to try to get some of those answers.

Does the member agree that the agriculture committee should call the CEOs of the major grocery chains to come and explain their excessive profits?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nunavut for her question. We certainly do agree that we need to examine the issue in depth and call witnesses.

I would like to take this opportunity to say publicly that I love the sound of my colleague's language when she speaks it. I encourage her to use it more often.

I said that we agree. However, when I am told that we need to condemn greed on the part of major corporations, I say that we should study the matter first, before we decide whether they have in fact been greedy. Of course, there is always greed in the capitalist system.

We need to find out if there is any abuse happening. I think that there probably is, but I do not want to go out on a limb today, because I have not yet examined the matter.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to seeing how the agriculture committee goes about its study. It was good to sub in on the committee when it was talking about grain dryers this week and the complexities around that. Most of the retail profit growth from Loblaws came from its pharmacies, like Shoppers Drug Mart and Pharmaprix. The study of profit growth and where the profits are happening could be part—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think there is a problem with interpretation. Is it working now?

Now that everything is working, I would ask the hon. member for Guelph to please start from the beginning.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the interpreters for helping us through my lack of French knowledge.

I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his work here this morning and also his work on the agriculture committee.

The study the agriculture committee will be looking at, I am hoping, will look into the source of profits. Loblaws has drug store chains like Shoppers Drug Mart and Pharmaprix, which have actually been the highest part of their profit growth through this, with the sale of medications the drug stores provide. Also, with the transfer of food from restaurant sales to sales through the retail sector, there has been a shift in demand, so that will also impact prices. As the member mentioned, with climate change, California is not supplying fruits and vegetables to Canada to the degree it used to because of climate change impacts.

Are these the types of things they will be able to look at during the study?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.

Yes, that is our goal. That is why I am saying that we need to do a serious study. We have a certain number of meetings planned, and we can hold more as needed. I think it is our duty to do things intelligently and identify the sources of this inflation.

I said it in my speech, but I want to repeat that we must help the people who are less privileged right now by providing some money so they can deal with the impacts of inflation, because it could take us quite a while to complete our analysis and take action, and in the meantime, people need to eat.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on two points.

I agree with his view of the government's incompetence in fighting inflation and improving the cost of living for everyone. I also agree with him when he talks about acting wisely to provide quick solutions for Canadians.

Acting wisely would have meant voting for our motion to stop the government from going ahead with its plan to raise taxes, which will increase the cost of absolutely everything for Canadians in the coming months. That would have been wise.

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

Madam Speaker, acting wisely in Parliament would mean not repeating the same stupid nonsense three times in every speech. It would also mean—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague ought to apologize. I am not stupid. I am not someone who repeats words and uses words like that. I find this totally unacceptable.

This is the second time today that my colleague has used this type of language. I would like him to withdraw his remarks and apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not believe the member said that the member for Mégantic—L'Érable was repeating those words. He did not say anyone's name. I will allow his comment, but I would ask members to choose their words wisely.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry if the member felt personally offended. My intention was to speak out against the fact that people have been saying the same thing over and over for days. In my view, that does not contribute to the debate. I did not intend to attack him personally. I hope that clears things up.

That said, acting wisely might also mean not taking the populist tack of arguing for an end to all taxes.