Debates of Dec. 13th, 2023

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member knows how long Europe has gone without bananas because Europe does not allow things to be shipped in when wrapped in plastic, or if they are shipped in wrapped in plastic, there is a penalty to be paid.

I also wonder if she has heard of the Nabob Coffee Company way out my way in British Columbia. The coffee pods look like they have a plastic ring inside a plastic bag, but that plastic is actually made from vegetable matter, and it is entirely compostable, so that works. Could she comment on that?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a great one. The answer is that, at this point, there is no commercially viable option to the plastic packaging available right now. It is a global supply chain. It is not just Canada that we are working with. We are working with the globe. As I said, we import two-thirds of our fresh food in this country from other countries.

If there were a commercially viable option at this time, I am sure that retailers and farmers, anybody who needs to package produce, would be using it. Because we are a global supply chain, and because we rely on two-thirds of our food to be imported, it means those countries that we import from also have to be on board with this.

If there were an alternative that was globally available at a good cost, because we do not want to do things that are going to increase the cost for Canadians, I know that farmers and the industry would be working very hard to be able to find that alternative. We heard that from the grocers themselves, as well. We are looking for alternatives. They are just not there yet. Once they are, I am sure that the industry will make sure to do all it can to implement them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will be aware that, earlier this week, Dr. Jim Stanford was one of our witnesses. He provided our committee with a brief that derives its information from publicly available data. On page five of that brief he noted that, from the beginning of 2021 to the spring of 2022, “the world price of oil tripled” from $40 a barrel to $120 a barrel and that, in that period, “the jump in the price of oil [which was] driven by a combination of geopolitics and speculation...increased fossil fuel prices by 30 times as much as the $10 carbon price increase in the same period.” We also know from previous briefs that, in the last three years, oil and gas companies have seen their net profits go up by over 1,000%.

Why, when Conservatives are talking about the carbon tax, do they conveniently ignore these facts and ignore their very real role in driving up food price inflation? One cannot argue with the facts. This is clear data that is available for all members, and oil profits have had a huge impact on world food prices, far more than the carbon tax has. Will my colleague acknowledge that?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague at the agriculture committee. We worked really hard together on the code of conduct, which I did not get a chance to talk about yet.

For the last several years, I have been a huge supporter of getting a code of conduct in place. This week, we heard that Loblaw and Walmart have no intention at this point in signing the code that is before them right now, but we have all the other retailers on board. The code of conduct is going to make it easier and better for farmers and suppliers, who generally face steep fines and fees that they have to pay just for the privilege of selling their goods on grocery store shelves. That also contributes to higher grocery prices, when farmers have to find a way to recoup the costs in the form of the fees and fines they pay to retailers for selling their goods.

I hope we can see the grocery code of conduct ratified and see all parties sign onto it to make sure we can treat our farmers and our suppliers fairly so they can continue to supply nutritious food to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, she has just failed to answer the question. My NDP colleague asked her about the oil and gas companies' exorbitant, astronomical, skyrocketing profits, which are having a very significant impact on the cost of groceries.

I would like my colleague to talk about oil and gas profits. I hope she heard the question.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague as well.

The reality is that the government policies are increasing food costs. Part of it is the carbon tax. Families already cannot afford food right now, and they are going to have to pay another $700 to feed their families next year.

Conservatives believe that families should be able to keep more money in their pockets. We will axe the carbon tax to help them have more affordable food.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauce, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Climate Change.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House.

Obviously, what is taking place today is no surprise whatsoever. It is interesting that, on Monday, I was standing up and actually being critical of the Conservative Party. It is hard to believe, but I was critical because Conservatives had brought in a concurrence report to talk about Afghanistan and foreign affairs.

By doing that particular concurrence report, they prevented government legislation from being debated. Interestingly enough, the legislation that they prevented from being debated, which members could have stood up and talked about, was Bill C-56, the affordability legislation. Every word that the Conservative Party has actually said already this afternoon could have been said during that debate.

That is why I argued back then, as I will today, that the Conservative Party is very much out of touch with the realities of what Canadians are actually facing. They are more concerned about how to cater to the extreme right.

We hear the term “MAGA Conservatives”. I would suggest that, more and more, it is becoming something that all Canadians should be very much aware of. It is creeping out, coming from the south. It is that Donald Trump, “make America great again” theme, and the catering to the far-right there that is coming up—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey is rising on a point of order.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have just been listening here. I do not really see a whole lot of relevance in what is being said. Once again, it is kind of ridiculous, what we are hearing.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just want to make sure that we do not get too many points of order; when people are talking about the points of order they bring up, they should actually quote that great book we are given when we first get here.

I will also say that we are speaking to a concurrence report.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member takes the time to actually read the report that was brought forward in the form of a concurrence motion, he will find out that it is about affordability. That is, in fact, how I started my comments. I was talking about the issue of affordability in Bill C-56, the affordability act, and how that legislation was being filibustered by the Conservatives through a concurrence motion. The reason for this is that the Conservatives do not care about the issues of the day that Canadians are concerned about. Then I started to explain it.

Maybe members on the other side do not all fully understand it because they are following the lead that is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party's office and that House leadership team over there. Canadians have a right to know that the pattern we are witnessing in terms of the behaviour, the issues that are being brought up and the manner in which they are being brought up definitely deal with the issue of MAGA politics. The member across the way might disagree. Maybe he should talk to his leader, and his leader can explain exactly what the Conservative agenda really is.

When we think of affordability, let us think in terms of what the member for Foothills said. He tries to give an impression about the cost of food and inflation. He cites a report and says there would be a 34% increase in the next couple of years. Then he tries to say that this is a report that he was kind of quoting from.

I will tell members what the Conservatives are very, very good at, which is the same thing that Donald Trump is very good at: sending out information that is misleading. I am very kind when I say that. I could think of a lot of other words to use, so I am being generous. Let me suggest the reason. Let us think about it: The member is trying to plant the seeds of fear that the price on pollution is costing huge amounts of money toward the issue of food inflation.

Some of the members across the way actually believe the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand there is an obligation to listen to the leader because, after all, he is their leader. However, that does not mean they have to believe everything he says. I do not want to get into personalities, but it is like a snake oil salesperson. Let us think about this. Let us think in terms of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known in this place that we do not refer to hon. members as snake oil salesmen or other negative things. All members here, if they are going to debate, should debate and use either a member's title or the name of their riding. I just do not think it is parliamentary language, and the member should maybe dwell upon our rules a bit more.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The Speaker was clear in his report that we should be referring to one another by our proper titles, which are, of course, our riding names.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the other day, I could not believe the number of times the Conservatives stood on points of order. I think they almost doubled the length of my speech because of the number of interruptions. Why were they interrupting then? It was because I was telling people following the debates how the Conservatives were voting; they took offence to my saying they do not support Ukraine and constantly vote against supporting it. They were up, one after another, saying that I cannot tell Canadians how they voted.

The point is that, as sensitive as the Conservative members might be in the House, their leader is sending very misleading messages. I will use the specific example that has already been brought up by a number of members today. Conservatives talk about the price on pollution. It does not matter how many times I say this, they ignore the facts and the reality. I will state the facts, something that they cannot deny.

I go to the University of Winnipeg and sit in classrooms for introduction courses or second-year programs, as well as high schools in the north end of Winnipeg, and speak with the students. I do not know if there is a Conservative member who has the courage to sit beside me and have that discussion, but I would talk about the facts and see what the member has to say.

Here is a fact: The price on pollution also provides a rebate, and 80% of Canadians or more get more money back than they pay. The Conservatives either do not understand it or are misleading Canadians. When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, what he does not say is that he is also going to be getting rid of the rebate. This would hurt average Canadians in the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, the people who need it the most. That is the money he would take away. That is the reality.

However, it does not prevent the leader of the Conservative Party from touring the country and telling people that, if he gets rid of the price on pollution, life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. That is just not true. Like Donald Trump, he will say things that are not true. It is that very real MAGA-right element that the Conservative Party of Canada is courting in a big way; it is prepared to sacrifice sound public policy in order to capture that base of support.

At the end of the day, it is unfortunate, because people are concerned about our environment, unlike the Conservatives, who still, in good part, deny climate issues are real. They do not believe in climate change, at least not publicly, in their public policies. They talk about making life more affordable by getting rid of the price on pollution. I will remind them what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. We all remember the governor. He is the individual who runs the Bank of Canada and the one the leader of the Conservative Party wanted to fire. Then there was an issue on which he kind of agreed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, so he has watered down that position.

The member for Abbotsford was told not to tell the leader what to say, that type of thing. There was some sort of demotion, but I will not go into that. That is all internal Conservative politics.

However, I can tell members that the Conservative Party of Canada today seems to be a little more sympathetic to the Bank of Canada.

One Conservative member tries to give the impression of a 30%-plus increase—

[Marilyn Gladu]

It is 34%.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is 34%, as has been corrected by the member opposite.

However, as the Conservatives want to give that bit of false information, what does the Governor of the Bank of Canada say? We are talking about a decimal point, which is 0.15% of 1%. In my books, that makes the Conservative Party an absolute joke. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Conservative Party to try to tell Canadians that by cutting out the price on pollution life is going to be more affordable for Canadians. The MAGA right might believe that, and they will be talking about it at great length over the Christmas break until we come back. The Conservatives are going to continue that spin as if the price on pollution is what is driving up inflation, but nothing could be further from the truth. One would think that would change their behaviour, but one should not bank on it. The Conservatives will not, because they are more concerned about that simple phrase so that they can put it on a bumper sticker. It is unfortunate, because it is sound public policy, and we can think of the consequence of it.

When the Conservatives are talking about affordability, we can think in terms of what is impacting the price of our groceries. One of the major factors is what is taking place in the world; for example, the war in Europe. Russia has invaded Ukraine. There was a time when every member of Parliament stood as one in recognizing that we had to be there for Ukraine. We saw the world, in good part, recognize the importance of Ukraine solidarity. However, we have witnessed the MAGA Conservatives, over the last number of weeks, adopt a position that they do not support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Members can think about that for a moment.

We have had so many trade agreements, 35 or 40 trade agreements, and no prime minister or government in Canada has signed more trade agreements than this current Prime Minister, and it was nice that the Conservative Party supported every one of them. Even when they were in government, the Conservatives brought in trade agreements. Why? It is because they realized that they are in Canada's best interest. They provide more marketplaces and more competition, and more competition means better prices. However, the very first time I have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against a trade agreement was on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I do not understand how they can justify that sort of position. It is not going to make life more affordable here in Canada. So, when members opposite talk about affordability, how do they justify their MAGA behaviour dealing with the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement?

Now, the Conservatives are out there again trying to spread all sorts of information. They are saying “Well, we support Ukraine”. We see members stand up on S.O. 31s saying how they support Ukraine. Well, if they support Ukraine, they would be supporting more affordable grocery prices, especially in the long run. Why did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? Why did they vote, not once, not twice but at least on three separate occasions during the line-by-line breakdown of expenses for the government to actually spend money on?

On three occasions, the Conservatives intentionally voted that money down, yet they say they support Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words. I would encourage my Conservative friends opposite to reflect on the flip-flop they made on the price on pollution. They say the price on pollution is going to make life more unaffordable. We know that is not true, but that is what they say. In the last federal election they did not say that. In the last federal election, they were in support of a price on pollution, but they took a flip-flop and now they do not support a price on pollution. It is marginal. We are talking a fraction point in terms of the impact on the inflation rate of groceries.

I would like to see them take what I would classify as an honourable flip-flop. An honourable flip-flop would be to recognize that the MAGA right is wrong and get behind Ukraine, and get behind the government, the Liberals and the New Democrats. The New Democrats rarely vote for trade agreements, but even they see the benefits of this trade agreement. The Bloc and the Greens do too. The Conservatives are the only political entity voting against it. They are the only political entity that voted against the line-by-line expenditures. That has more of an impact on long-term grocery prices than the price on pollution idea.

I would encourage the Conservatives, over the next number of weeks as they go and talk to their constituents, to reconsider the way they have been behaving inside the House. They should look at the benefits of the legislation and budgetary measures the government is taking that will make life more affordable and start voting for some of those initiatives, such as the dental plan that we just announced that is going to help literally millions of Canadians; the grocery rebate that was given by the government that helped nine or 11 million Canadians; and the child care program that we made at $10 a day, a truly national program. By the way, that is a program that they called a slush fund in the last federal election.

These are the types of actions that, if the Conservative Party would abandon the MAGA right, we would have better public policy that would be in the best interests of Canadians and that would make life more affordable. This is a government that will continue, day in and day out, to look at ways to ensure that life is as affordable as it possibly can be by using good, sound government policy. We would look to the opposition, particularly the Conservative Party, to recognize those facts. There is nothing wrong with supporting the types of initiatives that the government is bringing forward to provide the breaks Canadians want.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite certainly has tried to summon every boogeyman he can think of.

Canadians are seeing in their pocketbooks that they cannot afford to buy groceries and they cannot afford to pay their heating bills. They are seeing the carbon tax line. I get calls to my office all the time about it. I am sure that the member opposite is getting the same kinds of calls from people who are concerned about the increasing cost of groceries and the increasing cost of the carbon tax on everything.

Is he not receiving those calls?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member heard that the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the price on pollution, or the carbon tax which is what the Conservatives like to put on bumper stickers, actually is going to cost 0.15%. That is 0.15 of 1%. That is a far cry from what the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to spread throughout the country, which is exceptionally misleading.

Canadians want a government that actually has a climate plan. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, most Canadians recognize that climate change is real. There is an expectation of leadership. They are seeing it with this government in terms of a number of policy points that we have annunciated in order to be able to ensure a higher sense of affordability.

If we want to talk about inflation rates overall, I will get to that point in my next question.

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

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

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—