Debates of June 4th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak to the motion brought forward by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford regarding food prices.

The motion calls for something rather simple. It calls on the Prime Minister and the government to force the biggest grocery chains in this country to lower food prices or face consequences.

There are a lot of statistics in front of us, which have been offered up over the course of this debate. Most people in our ridings, in the communities we represent, understand this issue intuitively. They do not need to know what the rate of food price inflation was over the past three years or precisely what the profit margin of the big grocery giants has been compared with historical profit margins.

People are going to the grocery store in places such as Prince Rupert, Smithers, Kitimat and Terrace. They used to spend $100 on the two bags of groceries that they are buying, and now they are spending $120. They are wondering why. They are looking around, after the difficult years of the pandemic, and seeing that the biggest corporations in this country have been raking in massive profits, but their buying power has not increased. Their salary has not gone up. Their employer has not given them a 20% raise, yet every time they go to buy food for their family, they are paying 20% more than they did just three years ago. It is wrong.

What the motion seeks to do is to take real action to ensure that those prices do not just stabilize but actually come down. The cost of food in Canada has gone up 21% in just three years. The grocery giants posted profits of $6 billion in 2023 alone. The margins since 2021 have been double what the historical margins were in the grocery sector between 2015 and 2019.

It is fairly clear what has happened here. The big grocery giants have taken advantage of the conditions of the pandemic, when, for all sorts of reasons, we saw the cost of everything go through the roof. We have seen other factors drive food price inflation, things such as global conflict and extreme weather events.

However, what we see is that the price of food goes up quickly, but when the price of the inputs goes down and those supply chain issues resolve themselves, when things get better, the price of food does not come down. Why would they lower the price of food when they can simply rake in more profits?

That is why we need action from the government. Now, the government has acknowledged that there is a problem, but the approach has been to ask politely for these corporations to do something on behalf of consumers. It has been nine months since the Prime Minister called on the grocery retailers to stabilize prices or face the consequences. At the time, he mentioned taxation as a possible consequence of inaction. However, we have seen no action, and we have seen no consequences.

I looked through the much-lauded grocery code of conduct. I think the average Canadian reading through this document would be hard pressed to see how its contents are somehow going to lead towards lower prices at the grocery store. In fact, in reading through the code of conduct, I only found the word “price” mentioned twice. We also did a search for a word; I believe it was “reasonable”. We found 12 mentions of it. This is a voluntary agreement that asks the parties, companies in the food supply chain, to be reasonable with each other. Somehow this is supposed to lower prices for Canadians. I do not think that is a reasonable assumption.

We need action from the government. We have seen, around the world, that other governments have been willing to act on behalf of their citizens, to take more aggressive action with companies that are raking in unreasonable profits.

We have been talking about the example of France. In France, the government stood up for people and told the biggest food companies in the country that the prices of the products they were selling were unreasonable. It required them to bring down the prices of 5,000 products, and if they did not do that, there were going to be consequences. It came to an agreement with the 75 biggest food companies in the country to lower the prices of those products. That is what a government that is serious about protecting its citizens from price gouging is able to do. However, in this country, the Prime Minister politely asks it of companies, over and over again, and reflects back to Canadians that times are tough, things are difficult, but he has done very little to lower prices.

I want to talk for a moment about the distinction between stabilizing prices and lowering them. We have seen, as I mentioned, that the unreasonably high prices have stuck. Yes, food price inflation has declined in previous months, but those prices are still at a level that Canadians cannot afford to pay. The margins are still at a level that is far in excess of what they have been historically. We need the price of food products to go down so that people can finally afford the groceries they need to feed their families.

I mentioned the example of France. Greece has also taken steps to tackle food prices in a more aggressive way. South Korea has intervened on behalf of its citizens. Clearly, there are things that the government could do. This motion simply urges the government to take aggressive action, to say that enough is enough and that it is not going to ask politely anymore. It needs to require these companies that are raking in massive profits to lower the prices of their products for all Canadians.

I think everyone accepts that we live in a market-based economy, where, for so many things, the price is set as an agreement between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That is a premise that most folks in the House accept, but there are also some things in our society for which we have said that we are not willing to solely allow the market to dictate the price of things that people need. When it comes to rent, most provinces in this country have controls on rent increases because, in the past, they have seen the cost of rent increase year over year, to the point where people simply cannot afford basic housing.

The same is true with energy. We know that people need to be able to afford energy to heat their homes. In British Columbia, the price of energy is regulated so that people can have some sense of certainty when it comes to the cost of electricity. The government has intervened on behalf of consumers and said that, for certain things, it is not going to let the free market dictate what we pay. Of all the basic things that people rely on, one would think that food would be something the government would intervene on and say is non-negotiable. We simply cannot have a free-for-all when it comes to the prices people are paying for basic groceries.

Everyone accepts that retailers should be able to make a modest profit as part of their business, but the profits that we have seen are not reasonable. The price that people are paying for food in this country is not reasonable. Therefore, we are urging the Prime Minister to step in and, despite his cozy relationship with these companies, be firm with them and establish what the consequences are going to be. He needs to look to these other countries around the world that have had some success in driving down the price of food and deliver food price reductions for Canadians in the short term. That is what is being asked for here. It is a very reasonable demand that every Canadian can get behind, and I hope everyone in this place supports the motion we have put forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to ask the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley a question.

I do support the motion, but I want to ask him if he agrees that the complexity of food prices is more than corporate greed and gouging. Yes, that is a factor, but the climate emergency is also a factor. The 2005 book The Long Emergency explained then that we were going to see food scarcity and food insecurity, and that we needed to do more with local food supply and supporting our farmers because long global supply chains induce food insecurity in a climate-ravaged world.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Some of these factors are unavoidable unless we change our food system and change the supply chain to localize it and make it more resilient. We are going to see the impacts of extreme weather around the world drive up the price of food. I think we have all seen news articles that have clearly documented this effect.

What we are talking about here is what happens once those food products get to our country from where they are grown to the shelves they are bought from. What we are seeing is that certain companies are taking advantage of a situation, marking up the products by unreasonable amounts and raking in record profits on the backs of Canadians. That is what has to stop.

We can do both things at the same time. We can make our food system more resilient and address the clear price gouging and excess profit-taking that we are seeing in the grocery sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I referenced earlier, there is a concern with the impacts of a price cap.

The NDP has consistently brought up France as a country we should be looking to when setting up our model. I understand that, within the G7, Canada is doing reasonably well on the food inflation issue. Does the NDP have any information from the last three or four years about the cumulative total of food inflation in France was compared to Canada?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the numbers I have show that France has seen a 21% increase in food prices in just two years, in Canada we have seen food price inflation of more than 20% in three years. Maybe there is a slight difference there, but what we are talking about is unreasonable food price inflation. Whether it is 20%, 30% or 15%, we are talking about food price inflation that is far in excess of the overall rate of inflation.

When we dig into the numbers, we see massive profits, which have grown substantially, and that is because companies are taking advantage of a situation. I think everyone accepts that companies are going to pass along their increased costs to consumers, and sometimes those increases are inevitable. However, what we are seeing in this case is profit-taking that is not inevitable, but a conscious choice being made by these CEOs to take advantage of consumers, and that is wrong.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government, and this was even in the Auditor General's report that came out this morning, does not know how to manage its affairs.

I know my colleague is making the point, and I agree with him, that the price of food and groceries has certainly risen. We are looking at a cost of $700 more for food in 2024 over 2023. It is fine to want to have a policy to lower those food prices, but it would be more cost-effective for the New Democrats to consistently want to bring the carbon tax down because in the member's province it amounts to about $1,600 for each family, which is double the price of the food increase.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to pluck away on this one-string banjo about the carbon price and its effect on what they say is the price of everything.

There is a small impact. People have dug into these numbers and there is actual evidence as to the impact of the carbon pricing on things such as food. Professor Trevor Tombe from the University of Calgary looked into this and found that the overall impact is about 0.3% per year. We saw with grocery prices, at the height of it, that it was around 11% per year. At 0.3%, it would mean that, if a bag of groceries goes up a dollar, that is an infinitesimally small amount. A third of a cent on that dollar would be the impact of the carbon tax.

I think we need to keep things in perspective. It is not that there is no impact, but when we look at the profits these companies are raking in, the effect of that on the prices that people are paying is dozens of times higher.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot. I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Calgary Shepard.

We are here debating a motion that the NDP has put forward in which it is asking for action. The NDP is asking somebody to do something, anything, to address the skyrocketing costs of food. Now, I will agree that the price of food has gone up substantially, but here we are, as the NDP stands in this place and touts that somehow it is not responsible for voting constantly in favour of the measures this government puts forward, which is causing much of that price inflation. Further, its members are asking somebody to do something.

In fact, the member who just spoke, the leader of the fourth party who spoke earlier this afternoon and the party's whip are all saying that it is time to do something concrete. The tragic irony is that the motion we are debating today would truly do nothing. New Democrats are accusing the government and saying that it is time to stop asking nicely. They are accusing the Conservatives of focusing too much on the fact that taxes are causing an increase to the cost of food.

What are the NDP members doing? Well, instead of proposing measures that would lower the price of food, they are throwing a temper tantrum. They are shirking the responsibility and the opportunity to actually debate and challenge the government to address some of these things. They are simply saying, while stomping their feet, that it is simply time to stop these prices from going up.

The tragic irony is that it was only yesterday when that NDP member and every other left-leaning member of Parliament in this place voted against the common-sense Conservative measure that would have axed all the federal taxes on fuel to give Canadians a fuel tax holiday this summer. That member is as responsible as every member of the government for the increased costs that Canadians are facing when it comes to food.

I have heard throughout the debate today a pure lack of understanding of the most basic economic principles that are driving up the price of things such as food. In fact, we hear this from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance herself. She is celebrating the fact that inflation is now 2.7%, but that is a misnomer because, as the Liberals celebrate inflation, she says it herself that it has come down, which is misleading in every sense of the word because no costs have come down.

What they are celebrating is that prices have increased dramatically, but they are just not quite increasing as quickly anymore. It is a pure example of the economic incompetence that we see in the Liberal government. Its front bench, backed up by a Liberal backbench and the New Democrats, seems to be unwilling to take into account basic economic principles.

I am proud to represent a region of Alberta that has a whole host of farmers growing some of the most incredible agricultural products on the planet. My father Jay, my uncle Darren, my family friend Dale and my cousin Grainger are all in the field today planting crops. They are putting in the last of our spring planting season on the family farm and planting oats today. However, here is the reality that farmers face. They are subject to the carbon tax, but not just, as it seems the Liberals and the NDP like to suggest, on what they pay for the fuel that they put into their vehicles. No, it is much more than that.

I want to share a basic economic principle here. It is that the carbon tax, by design, is meant to increase the cost of everything in order to drive consumer change. That is what the carbon tax is. Quite frankly, it was the Prime Minister who said it would never go above $50, prior to the 2019 election. After the 2019 election, all of a sudden it was that it would never go above $170. We know that some friends of the Liberals, the very same economists whom the Liberals quote and tout so often, are calling for the carbon tax to be raised to over $1,000. Can members believe that? I have asked the question directly to the Liberals, and they have refused to answer it.

A basic economic principle is that a mechanism like the carbon tax drives up the cost of every part of the supply chain. From the farmer who plants, to every aspect of the agricultural operation; then the transportation of the harvested good; the storage of that good; the processing and production of whatever the secondary or tertiary product is; then the further transportation to a warehouse or further processing, or ultimately to a store or something like a grocery store or a warehouse; and then to a grocery store. The product is then sold to the consumer.

Further, the consumer has to pay the carbon tax on every part of the process to purchase said product. Take a loaf of bread, for example. Consumers are paying the carbon tax on their home and on the fuel to go to the grocery store. At every single step of the supply chain, the carbon tax applies. By design, it is meant to increase costs. The Liberals have succeeded in accomplishing that objective. Further inflation in that process has had a significant impact in increased costs.

What do we do about it? This is what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, talks so often about. It is time to empower people within our country: farmers and producers, those who know how to get the job done. Let us lower costs for them. Let us make sure that we lower costs for every step of the food supply chain. As a result, we could see the price of groceries go down for Canadians. We could see Canadians save costs directly. We would see the indirect savings throughout every stage of the supply chain when it comes to food.

The NDP members are acting like peacocks today. They are standing up, stomping their feet and yelling that somebody ought to do something. It is an acknowledgement, I would suggest, of what an abject failure their confidence and supply coalition agreement is with a Liberal Party that is truly not worth the cost. Conservatives have a practical plan to see costs lowered for Canadians and then, further, to make sure that we unleash the potential that exists in the Canadian economy, whether that be in energy, agriculture or manufacturing. Anything that can be done, I am confident that our country can do it. It is just that right now it is held back by an ideological Liberal-NDP government that truly does not understand the basic principles of what it is to see an economy prosper.

When an economy prospers, it is the people who can benefit at every step of the process. Whether that be the producers or whether that be the buyers of the goods, when there is a free market that is functioning at its best, prosperity reigns. We can get back to that point when the member for Carleton becomes the prime minister and unleashes the true potential of our nation. That is why Conservatives are going to bring it home.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here when the member for Carleton was actually on the front bench with Stephen Harper, and I remember their cutting the veterans office in my riding.

It is interesting that one of the things that the Conservatives like to run away from, but is a real fact and truth, is that they were the ones who brought in the GST to this country, which is a consumer tax on citizens. Later on, the member for Carleton also championed and brought in the HST. To bring the HST in, we actually had to borrow money during a deficit, which we are still paying for to this day. Second, the former Conservative government had to provide $6 billion in payoffs to provinces to bring in a new tax for Canadians, including on groceries. How can the Conservatives continue to say that they are supportive of the passing-on of costs to consumers without taking full responsibility themselves?

The Conservatives never did a single thing when competition issues came forth with the bread scandal, letting the CEOs and companies off while Canadians were actually being charged high prices, gouged, for the basic staple of bread. The Conservatives were complicit in working against Canadian consumers. They never did a single thing about that.

The Conservatives have also been opposed to new Competition Act issues that we are finally bringing into place. How can they continue to do that to Canadians?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was an exposé in economic incompetence. I will give members a clear example as to why I say that definitively. We are talking about the previous Mulroney governments, so we are really reaching back more than three decades where there were a series of taxes levied against Canadians that were hidden in costs. What did Brian Mulroney do? He brought forward the GST, which Canadians could see. That should be proof positive that when the NDP is involved, economic incompetence reigns.

When it comes to the motion before us, I am so proud that the legacy of the Conservative Party is one of building a nation that prospers, of building a nation where competition can reign and where there can be investment. When the private sector is able to build a future, it encourages Canadians to take the risk of being an entrepreneur. It encourages young Canadians to be able to take a risk to buy a home and be able to ensure that there is a future for them in our country.

It is unfortunate that the socialist NDP that props up the Liberals wants to continue to keep Canadians from being able to reach the full potential that I truly believe they have.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the factors driving up food prices is climate change.

The Retail Council of Canada representative explained that recent droughts and heat waves in California and western Canada have had a direct impact on the produce aisle. The price of lettuce and cauliflower increased by 30% during major heat waves that devastated crops, including in California, Arizona and Quebec. There are many other examples.

What does my colleague think about the impact of climate change on rising food prices?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that, as somebody who is proud to come from a farming background, I am lectured often by other members from different political parties about how farmers should address the challenges related to climate change. Farmers are up to the task. They are capable of ensuring that they can provide the high-quality products that Canadians need at an affordable price.

However, I will tell the House what the biggest inhibiting factor to that is in our country today. It is a big, bloated government with a bureaucracy that is driving up the cost of everything and with policies that are intentionally designed to raise prices to change consumer behaviour. Those policies are supported in many cases by the Bloc Québécois.

I would simply end my response to the member with this: If the member is concerned about rising costs, including the cost of energy that has an impact on the supply chain, then I hope he would take seriously the need to support Alberta energy's getting to global markets so that we can, in fact, be a world leader. We not only want to drive down emissions, but we also want to be able to provide high-quality goods, like food, to Canadians and to so many people around the planet, at a cost and with an environmental footprint that Canadians can and should truly be proud of.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour, obviously, to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Shephard. I know that the residents have seen it fit to send me back here to speak on their behalf. One of the issues that I often get emails and phone calls about is the daily cost of living. Whether it is constituents' cellphone bill, rent, mortgages or prices at the grocery stores and elsewhere, the cost of goods and services is going up, and everybody sees it all around them.

A lot of that is related to decisions that were made during the pandemic. The government massively increased the monetary supply and more than doubled the national debt at the time. We know from the Auditor General and the PBO that only about $205 billion of the $600 billion in spending had nothing to do with the pandemic. There is a lot of spending there.

On this opposition day that has been put forward by the NDP, I heard one member on the other side whom I want to correct. The member for Edmonton Griesbach was talking about three apples for $7. My favourite store in Calgary is the Calgary Co-op. It is a co-op with 400,000 members, and I am a member. There is no way; one would have to buy a lot of apples. I highly recommend that the member drive down from Edmonton, go to the co-op in Calgary and purchase my favourite, which is Granny Smith apples, for $1.32 for every single apple. If he buys more, he gets a discount. It is highly recommended that he do so.

Again, someone can pick and choose which grocery stores they want to go to. There is choice out there. One thing I will mention is that the federal government is making it making it more expensive to shop at Calgary Co-op because the government has banned the store's fully compostable green bags, which have no plastic in them whatsoever, from being used, despite the fact that the City of Calgary worked with Calgary Co-op to create a bag that was fully compostable in the city's composting system. Even the ink does not have any plastic in it. It is not artificial. It is a completely recyclable bag.

I have tabled petitions on behalf of the residents in my riding. I have spoken up on it. I have sent the minister letters on this fact, pointing out to him that the City of Calgary is one of the first movers on compostable bags in its jurisdiction, trying to address the issue of single-use plastic bags. I will say that I prefer the compostable bags.

There are many residents who have emailed me, many more than I ever thought would. There is now the ridiculous situation where one has to buy the bags in a roll. The clerks are not allowed to give them out. People have to buy them from a bin right before the cash and then have their groceries bagged. They are much more expensive than they were before, and that adds to the cost of buying groceries unless one remembers to bring cloth bags or one's own other bags. Many of us forget to do so. When someone has kids and the kids are hassling them, it is very difficult to do. That is just one very small example of what happens as the cost of daily living increases.

Some of the examples that they have here include the government's ordering companies to reduce prices, as if that would work, when the government is pushing up prices because the supply chains are stressed and because the monetary supply has been vastly increased. There are more dollars chasing fewer goods and services. It is as true today as it has been for decades before.

I especially find it concerning that the government would introduce price caps here. Price controls have never worked in any jurisdiction. It has been attempted. It leads to rationing by suppliers and by producers, because if someone cannot get the price that it costs to make the product and to ship it, so that it can be on our store shelves, that makes them not do it. Therefore we run short of goods. This was true in western Germany. It was true well after the war. It is true in many jurisdictions for different types of goods and services when the government puts a cap on prices.

It was tried in Canada in the 1970s. Famously, it was tried in the United Kingdom by a Labour government, and it led to shortages of goods and services. In the United Kingdom, the national Labour government was actually setting tax rates. The national government of the U.K., in the 1970s, set tax rates. It is reported in one of Lady Thatcher's biographies in which she wrote about her time in government.

I would think on (b) in the motion, with respect to the delays in long-needed reforms to the nutrition north program. I think many of us would actually agree that reforms are needed to the program. I do not think anybody disagrees. We have had some of the prices quoted back to us as to what it costs to live in the north. I think that for me and other members who have come to be educated thanks to others who have done the research and who have put forward the numbers, this is something we would generally agree with.

However, it then goes on to say, “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.” I wonder when the NDP leader is going to talk about his brother, who lobbies for Metro. I wonder when we will have a conversation about all the big, major corporations that are so busy lobbying ministers. Some of these ministers were lobbyists before they became ministers and are now buddies with the people they were lobbying. I would like to hear more about that.

In Alberta, one of the major costs and cost drivers for suppliers of produce and grocery goods on the store shelves is the carbon tax. Before the rebate, the average family in Alberta will pay $2,943. Every Alberta family will be worse off in just a few years if they are not worse off right now, on average. Consistently, many constituents are sending me their Enmax bills and Hydro One bills, which show that they are paying a lot of money, sometimes more than they use in natural gas, just on the carbon tax.

I have a great love for Yiddish proverbs, and I know there are those who appreciate it when I use them. A fool says what he knows, and a wise man knows what he says. Now I can transition to what I think is the greatest foolishness: budget 2024.

The $61 billion of new spending in it will only drive up the cost of our goods and services even further. This is $61 billion of new government spending that the coalition has decided to support, further driving up the prices of goods and services in Canada. It is not just me saying this. RBC says it. CIBC says it. TD says it. The big banks are reporting it. Economists are saying it. Analysts are saying consistently that if we drive up public spending and drive up public borrowing, we will crowd out private spending and private borrowing because they become more expensive and there are fewer goods to go around. In fact, RBC's budget analysis headline for federal budget 2024 was “Lack of spending restraint offset by revenue surprise and tax hikes”.

This is the last thing I want to raise. We often say in this place, and I hear rhetoric from the NDP side on it, that companies are being greedy and that usually it is just profit-making. Companies are trying to earn a profit, whether it is a family company or a company that has shareholders. What about government greed? What about the government incessantly raising taxes on everyone in this country and then expecting to get as much of that revenue into its pockets as possible so it can have a Liberal green slush fund? The Liberals are so embarrassed by it that now they are going to shut it down. What about government greed and the incessant voracious appetite for tax dollars so they can be misspent, thrown away and corruptly given to consultants? This is something I do not hear the New Democrats and Liberal MPs talk about enough.

We have endless examples of corruption in different government bureaucracies. The latest is the SDTC's green slush fund, which the government has admitted to and is shutting down. The government is abandoning it and trying to run away from its own board members, whom it appointed. They corruptly gave money to the corporations they ran. However, that money came from taxpayers in each of our ridings, who paid more at the end of the day.

Families in my riding, as I said, pay $2,943 more in carbon tax. That does not just raise the price of groceries. It is on their utility bills and it is for the staycation they want to take. It is in all the goods they are buying for their homes. All of those costs are incurred as part of it. There are shipping costs too. There are no farms in my riding. The closest connection we have to farms in my riding is the grocery stores, and it is the same thing for seafood. That is the closest connection we have to the food chain, and when we go to grocery stores, we see prices being inflated because the shipping costs have gone up so high.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division because all Canadians deserve to know which members of Parliament are fighting for lower grocery prices and which ones are not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to)