Debates of Oct. 6th, 2022

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech.

He talked mainly about food prices. It is important that we not confuse all the causes of rising food prices. We do not think that CEOs are the only ones to blame for the price increase. A unique set of circumstances involving a multitude of external factors is causing economic instability. These factors include rising operating costs related to COVID-19, higher input costs including more expensive staple foods, and poor harvests due to droughts and the impact of climate change in recent years.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I invite my hon. colleague to take a plane and go up to the north of her riding to see what people pay in the northern stores. They are ripped off consistently. Does she think that the northern stores are not making massive amounts of money? The northern stores' CEO is making millions as well. This is happening to her constituents.

Loblaws made $901 million, up $132 million. Metro made $680 million, up $49 million over the last year. Sobeys made $744.8 million, up $46.7 million. The member can talk about input costs and COVID, but we are talking about price gouging.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I am sharing my time with the deputy House leader to the government.

I have had an opportunity to read this motion and I think there is a lot of good in it. Quite frankly, I am inclined to support it and most likely will, to be completely honest.

It reminds me that just a few days ago, during a question and answer on a different issue, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie asked me specifically about this issue in the context of another bill that we were discussing. I can recall replying to him that I thought it was a very important issue to discuss. I did not realize that this exchange would lead to the NDP, just a couple of days later, introducing a motion to that effect, but I am absolutely delighted to see it. I think it will give an opportunity, if passed, for the necessary studies to be done.

I think there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that there are large corporations profiting off of inflation and the fear of inflation, and it is something we need to address. I look forward to, hopefully, this passing with the support of the House and to the opportunity to ensure that these practices are dealt with in a swift fashion.

I want to compliment the NDP on bringing forward a very reasonable motion, quite frankly, unlike my colleagues from across the way, the Conservatives. They bring in motions that are pretty much predicated on slogans like “triple, triple, triple” whatever.

By the way, I do not understand this “triple, triple, triple” thing. It does not make any sense to me. When I hear them say “triple, triple, triple”, all I think of is that there have been three times in the last eight years that the population has rejected them. Maybe they are referencing “triple, triple, triple” because they have been rejected at the polls three times in a row. I am not sure. That is all I can really put together based on it, because otherwise it does not make sense. It does not even deliver well. In any event, that is what I assumed.

The Conservatives have policies that are completely out there, as opposed to coming forward with stuff like what we are seeing today, which is very reasonable, in my opinion. We obviously know their position on cryptocurrency. That is becoming very well known in the House. The Leader of the Opposition is a big fan of cryptocurrency.

As a matter of fact, and I am not sure if the public knows this, there is a private member's bill in the name of the member for Calgary Nose Hill on cryptocurrency. We were actually supposed to debate that private member's bill during the first sitting of the House, when we resumed in September, but guess what. The Conservatives punted it forward. Do members know when it was punted forward to? It was today. We were actually supposed to discuss that bill today at 5:30 p.m., but guess what the Conservatives did. They punted it forward.

The Conservatives seem to be very scared about the issue of cryptocurrency. If they are not, why will they not let the member for Calgary Nose Hill bring forward her bill? Free the bill. Free her bill. Allow it to come to the floor.

The Conservative leadership, run by the member for Carleton, the Carleton crypto king, is purposefully preventing this bill from moving forward in the House. Let us have a discussion on cryptocurrency. Allow the member for Calgary Nose Hill to bring her bill before the House. The Conservatives need to stop holding it back, because, quite frankly, it is unfair to Canadians to not let us have the opportunity to discuss this very important matter.

That is the contrast I am trying to show here with the reasonable motion we see today to look into a very important matter. The NDP clearly accepts the global reasoning that has been supported by economists throughout the globe as to why we have inflation. No, it is not the Prime Minister of Canada who caused inflation. It is a global issue. The NDP knows that and I am fairly certain the Bloc knows that too.

The Conservatives are set on trying to convince the Canadian population that it is actually the Prime Minister who caused global inflation. If he had the ability to do that, I would be really impressed, quite frankly, especially considering that the Conservatives routinely accuse the Prime Minister of being incapable of doing just about anything. Now suddenly they are willing to give him credit for being able to control global inflation.

Nonetheless, those are the kinds of issues the NDP is trying to look at in a realistic way, rather than saying that we do not want to spend money giving GST rebates because that is going to cause inflation. Members might note that this is one of the original arguments that came from the Conservatives before they flip-flopped on it. They have now decided that it is maybe not in their best interests to vote against that, so maybe they should support it. Rather than taking the approach of the Conservatives and saying we are not interested in inflation because we know where it comes from, the New Democrats are actually trying to get to the root cause of it, and I think their main complaint here has a lot of merit to it.

We have seen a lot happen today. It has been a pretty revealing day for the Leader of the Opposition. We have learned this morning that he was actively using misogynistic tags on YouTube to get users to go to his YouTube page. For people who do not understand how this works, there is a particular hashtag, #mgtow, which is “men going their own way”, from a group that is specifically based around anti-feminism and misogyny. There are primarily and pretty much only men in this group. What the Leader of the Opposition was doing was using that hashtag—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster is rising on a point of order.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand that we are debating an opposition day motion today from the NDP about food supply. I am unsure of the relevance of what the member across—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member does know there is a lot of latitude in the way we get to the object of the debates, and I will let the member get there.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to that, because we do have a tradition in Parliament, I would like the hon. member to clarify whether he thinks the member for Carleton was just trying to attract incels in general, or maybe even some on the back bench.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Can we wait until questions to ask questions of the hon. member making the speech? The hon. member has addressed the issue of the motion. He has started his speech on it and has spent most of the time so far on the issue of the motion.

The hon. member for Prince Albert is rising on a point of order.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster was very clear that she would like to see the member stick to the topic at hand. Also, the fact is that our leader has been very clear on this issue. He condemns it and condemns all the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is debate. Let us allow the hon. member to finish his speech.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is trying to bring me back to relevance and immediately starts to argue the point with me. I would say to him, based on his last comment, that no, the Leader of the Opposition has not been clear. He can look at the tape from earlier today, at just after 10 o'clock when he made his speech. I asked him a question, point blank. In a very polite way, I said I would like to give him an opportunity to explain to Canadians what exactly he was doing with his YouTube channel and how he is actively working to prevent that now. I asked him to do that and he would not do it.

I can see all the points of order, and I wonder why—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to relevance, the member for Kingston and the Islands denied unanimous consent to condemn blackface. I am wondering if he would like to do that now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Is he asking for a unanimous consent motion or is he asking for me to say something?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

He is asking for unanimous consent to condemn blackface.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am asking for that member to condemn it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies.

As I have been advised, that enters into matters of debate, so I would encourage the hon. parliamentary secretary to conclude his remarks on the motion at hand so we can start questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess this is an issue the Conservatives do not want to talk about. I do not blame them. They are getting up time after time, interrupting me with points of order and trying to prevent me from continuing because they do not want to talk about this issue. We can see that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are heckling me. They will not stop, and I realize that at the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition will have to answer for it one way or another. I would encourage him to come forward to this House and explain to Canadians his position on using misogynistic and hurtful hashtags in order to generate views on YouTube.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

With regard to possible collusion in the food distribution industry, we know that the industry is an oligopoly of five giants that control 90% of the market. These giants can easily agree amongst themselves to negotiate for low prices with agricultural producers or set high prices when selling to consumers. The motion alludes to this indirectly.

I believe my favourite part of the motion is the one about asking the Competition Bureau to launch an investigation of the industry, of these giants, to check for collusion and excessive profits, a bit like what was done in England with the British Parliament.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the third speech in a row that this has happened. Obviously the first opportunity to ask a question goes to the the Conservatives, but not one of them has stood up to ask me a question. I appreciate that. I understand if they are afraid to do that.

I will answer the question from the member of the Bloc, and he makes a very good point. Not only can that monopoly develop through collaboration, but, looking at game theory, that collaboration can also happen through the practice of different companies making certain moves without actually having a verbal discussion about it. These are the things that we need to look into. This motion particularly calls on finding out if it is happening and, if so, how that increase has occurred, specifically as it relates to prices going up based on the monopoly.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, a report came out at the beginning of the year saying that CEOs in Canada are now making 191 times more than their average worker. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the grocery industry. I would ask again what some of my colleagues have asked: Why would the Liberal government not close the loopholes to make those who are making the most money, the wealthiest of the wealthiest Canadians, pay their fair share?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The spread between the haves and the have-nots has only gotten larger and larger. The reality of the situation is that not only is it not good that CEOs are being paid 191 times more because of the difference between those who are making incredible sums of money and those who are making very little bits of money, but it is also generally not good for our economy as a whole when we do not have a strong middle class. We need a strong middle class because they are the ones who actually drive the economy.

The member's question was about why the government will not move forward on it. In this motion the NDP calls for that, and I just told her that I am going to support the motion. Therefore, I do support the call that is in the motion.