Debates of June 4th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a little bit of a political science lesson from the member from the NDP. He has been here a long time. He has been in office with the Prime Minister for the last nine years. For every grievance and complaint that the NDP members have, they have had an opportunity to address it and to fix it. For all the complaints that the NDP has in this motion today, NDP members could walk over to the Prime Minister today and tell him that unless he does A, B or C, they will pull the plug and call an election so that Canadians can decide. He talks tough all the time.

Conservatives are on the side of everyday Canadians. We want to lower grocery prices. The NDP has propped up the Liberal idea. Remember the grocery summit that happened last year? It was going to lower prices by Thanksgiving. Nothing happened from that. As to the NDP's plan on the carbon tax, the NDP knows that it is out of touch to want to quadruple the carbon tax from the pain already being caused. The NDP talks a big game. I will put our record, when we were in government, of lower grocery prices against the NDP record any day of the week.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been on the fisheries committee since 2015, and we have just witnessed a huge run of red herring. I think there should be a harvest, actually.

Is the member who just spoke comfortable with the fact that big grocery racked up $6 billion in profits last year? Was it too much, not enough or just right? What does he think?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, all those numbers the member just cited are their record after nine years. This is a non-binding NDP motion. The NDP members sound tough about making changes, but they have not. Again, what the NDP wants to do, as opposed to doing anything else, is to raise the taxes on everything by hiking up the carbon tax and quadrupling it. Canadians know that is out of touch, and it is only going to drive the gap in prices up even further.

I will just have Canadians reflect on a moment here after nine years. The government has increased taxes: the carbon tax, alcohol tax and payroll tax. The government had an unused housing tax that was supposed to solve a bunch of problems. I will ask Canadians to reflect on the government's record and credibility as to finances and taxation. Has climate change been resolved? Are forest fires not happening anymore? That is not true. Is the budget balanced? Not even close. Is life more affordable? Not even close. Are more houses getting built? Not even close.

Every time the government claims that it wants to hike taxes as a solution, it actually does the opposite. Canadians see that through and through. They are getting nailed with the carbon tax, while the rich, who the government claims to hike taxes on, seem to be doing just fine.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to get my colleague's comments about the difference in inflation between now and the Harper years, when the former Harper government stimulated the economy and balanced it again in six years instead of seven, which it even had in its plan, versus what is happening today.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives balanced the budget. We had lower taxes. Rent was half of what it is today. Housing prices were half of what they are today, and life was a heck of a lot more affordable than it is now, even after all the pitches and proposals by the NDP and Liberals. I will put a common-sense Conservative record any day of the week, on the table, versus what they have and the record they are going to have to answer for.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, $1 billion is the excess profit RBC made over and above its last quarter in 2023 because the NDP did not stop the merger, approved by the finance minister, of RBC buying small, scrappy competitor HSBC. The NDP in this House of Commons is a walking contradiction. The New Democrats talk about corporate greed and about going after big, greedy corporations, but in not saying no to the merger of RBC and HSBC, RBC became richer and Canadians became poorer. At the end of the day, Canadians feel they have been sold out by the NDP, which is not holding government to account and not standing up for Canadians.

There are three mega-mergers by the Liberal government that the NDP has not stopped. Rogers and Shaw merged only a year ago, which meant that cellphone prices went up, and we have WestJet and Sunwing, and it was just announced a couple weeks ago that Sunwing will be shutting down.

Competition means that we have more players fighting for our dollars to ensure we bring prices down and service up. In Canada, we have a major monopoly problem, where we have too many big players that have squeezed smaller players out, and the result of that is that Canadians are paying the highest prices in the world.

After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills in the world: three times as much as Australia and twice as much as the U.S. and Europe. When it comes to bank fees, Canadians pay among the highest bank fees in the world. Only six banks control 95% of mortgages. We look at cellphone bills and how they are affecting families unable to afford groceries at the grocery store and wanting to use cellphones for safety, education or the workplace. They are simply saying that they cannot afford those bills; they are too much. When we look at airlines, we have only two airlines that control 80% of all the air travel in Canada. We look at those fees, the junk fees, taxes and airport fees, and they are among the highest in the world.

The New Democrats have had an ample chance to say no. They have a supply agreement. They are the only party in this House that is propping up the government, and by not standing up to say no to RBC-HSBC, the result has been almost 1% higher mortgage rates, specifically in Vancouver and Toronto, where HSBC had 10% of Vancouver mortgage rates and 5% of Toronto mortgage rates. The NDP was not able to say no to Rogers and Shaw, and prices have gone up, even though the Prime Minister promised that he would halve prices for Canadians. The NDP was not able to say no to WestJet and Sunwing, and Sunwing is being obliterated and eliminated.

The NDP government is a walking contradiction by standing up for “corporate bad” and standing up for Canadians, who are the opposite of that. Canadians feel they have been completely sold out. There is even a limerick for it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

There seem to be some cross-conversations while the hon. member is trying to do his speech, so I ask members to please wait. They will have an opportunity to have five minutes of questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bay of Quinte has the floor.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are applauding this record. Canadians right now are poorer than they have ever been and are paying more for services compared to the rest of the world. We have less competition. There was even a limerick on this:

The NDP let the Big Fish Swim
HSBC Shaw, they're all in
RBC and Rogers GREW
Sunwing flew right out of view.

At the end of the day, the NDP was the only party and its leader to say no to these mergers to help Canadians. When we look at what is happening with grocery prices, it is the only party that could have said no to what is raising the prices of groceries the most across Canada, which is the carbon tax. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, the truckers who ship the food and the manufacturers who make the food, those taxes add costs all the way down the line and grocery prices have gone up.

More importantly, when we look at competition for groceries, even though we heard in this House of Commons Loblaws consistently and Metro hardly ever, not once have we heard about the manufacturers, the manufacturing size and scope of these big monopolies that exist not only across Canada but across North America: Nestlé, PepsiCo, Tyson Foods, Kraft Heinz, Archer Daniels Midland and George Weston Limited. Manufacturers are charging excessive amounts for their products because there is no competition.

When we talk about competition, I finally figured out why it is so wrong with the NDP and the Liberals. If one were to sit down on a three-legged stool, there is balance. There are three legs and that is really what we are missing in competition: one is regulation, one is competition and one is innovation. The common-sense Conservatives talk about these three things.

First, on the need for regulation, we do not believe in the big, powerful companies. We want to make sure there is regulation, companies are held in check and Competition Act changes are made. I have a bill that would eliminate the efficiencies defence. Second, looking at competition, we need small players to grow and compete. Third, we need to make sure we have innovation, new ways to bring innovation and bring more competition to Canadians. I finally figured it out with this three-legged stool. The NDP only has one leg. That is why, when people sit on it, they talk about regulation, regulation, regulation and not innovation or competition. People topple over, and they topple left. It is how it goes.

When we talk about what we need for competition, of course we need to talk about regulation, but we have to talk about competition in Canada. No aspect of this motion talks about taking on manufacturers and their large profits or looking at who can grow in Canada. Let us talk about Save-On-Foods with 183 locations in western Canada. Why are we not helping Save-on-Foods come east in Canada? Freson Bros. in Alberta has 16 stores throughout the province, a great, locally owned grocery store. Why are we not helping it grow, expand and get to the rest of Canada? We are looking at how locally owned grocers can play a part in competing in the Canadian economy.

There are new innovations right now. People can order groceries on their phones and they are delivered to their doors. There is normally a four-dollar delivery fee, but what is being eliminated? It eliminates the warehousing and the retail store. The biggest advantage that Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro have, besides the leader of the NDP's brother working for one of those companies, Metro, is real estate. The biggest monopoly in some of that real estate is the real estate investment trusts. They own all the land. Of course those grocery stores are going to be tough to compete against because they own the land on which they reside. Grocery right now is a retail game. It is basically a real estate game. They own the land on the right side of Main Street, and people driving home from work, driving to work or on the weekend get groceries for their families. They have a complete and utter monopoly on how we get groceries to Canadians.

It has to be about distribution, which is part of innovation. It has to be competition, meaning we are bringing more competitors in. It has to be regulation, but regulation also means that we get rid of the burden of the carbon tax, which we know is increasing those prices. None of that is in this opposition day motion. When we talk about what could have happened for Canadians, there are motions and ideas, but we had ideas up front, we have put forward motions that the government could have made and that the NDP could have said no to, which was opposing the three mergers that are hurting Canadians today.

The fact is that Canada cannot even get cellphone prices down. We have the highest in the world. The answer, of course, is the same thing: competition and innovation to get those prices down. When we look at bank fees, open banking will revolutionize banking in Canada, if we can ever do it. It has taken six years to get regulation in place. When we look at airlines, airports and competition as a whole, the only party in the House that is even willing to look at this is the common-sense Conservative Party. A common-sense Conservative government understands there are three legs to a stool. We know we are going to create competition, and we know we are going to ensure there is innovation. We are going to axe the carbon tax. We are going to ensure there are regulations so the monopolies do not control this economy. We will bring back competition to Canadians, to their families and to their savings and their households.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, in Nunavut, aviation fuel is exempt from the carbon tax, so carbon tax cannot be used as an excuse for the high prices of groceries. Does the member agree that, in fact, it is corporate greed causing higher prices in Nunavut?

An example I have mentioned is the CEO of the North West Company, who earned $3.91 million, while my constituents in one year earned $3.91 million. Meanwhile, my constituents are suffering from food insecurity, and the costs of groceries are not being lowered. Knowing that the carbon tax is not applied to aviation fuel and that all the communities I represent are fly-in communities, how does the member respond to realizing that corporate greed is actually the cause of high prices in the Arctic?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, carbon tax is included in interprovincial travel, so the member might be surprised to learn that carbon tax is added to those fuel bills. However, we agree on the fact that to tackle these monopolies and oligopolies we need more competition. Do I believe we should have big, massive corporations with big CEOs making massive dollars in groceries? Absolutely not.

We have been on the record consistently saying we want more competition, which means we have more companies and the wealth is spread out. How to do that is to have more companies. The problem with our remote areas in Canada is that it is going to take a lot more innovation and sometimes a bit of help to get that to happen, because we do have large companies that dominate the landscapes. The only way out of that is to make sure we are involved in rural areas to help those areas get better, as well as to make sure there is more competition in general in urban areas.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the CEOs of five big oil companies are coming to the environment committee on Thursday. We know these companies are keeping the prices high, earning excess profits and not reinvesting those profits. Does the member think those companies should be broken up into lots of little companies? Would he vote for something like that, or does he take his marching orders from the gas tax-hiking Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to competition, I do not think there is any industry we are really protecting and one that is really protected. Every part of the Canadian economy is a monopoly or an oligopoly. That is just simple fact, and that is after nine years of the Liberal government.

When we look at every single sector, whether that be telecommunications, banking or airlines, the government has done nothing to create competition in any of that. The result is that Canadians, and I do not know if the member's constituents should be happy, are all paying more than every other G7 nation, every one, because of the government's inability to create competition. Saying that we are protecting something when everything under the government is under a monopoly or an oligopoly is pretty rich.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague sits on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I know that he is interested in the price of many goods and services in Quebeckers' and Canadians' market basket.

In the last budget, the government proposed an open banking system. That will completely sideline Desjardins, the largest financial institution in Quebec. The federal government wants to impose an open banking system and force Desjardins either to isolate itself or to join the federal system, which would certainly go against the spirit of the Constitution.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about this. Does he not think that, before once again imposing a last-minute policy on the provinces, the government should coordinate with Quebec to ensure that Quebeckers, most of whom bank with Desjardins, can receive the same treatment as all other Canadians?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have a lot of fun in the industry committee together, and I enjoy serving with him.

Open banking is supposed to be giving less regulation and more competition to the banking sector. The federal government should only be introducing regulations that bring an API, or application programming interface, that forces the banks, on consumer consent, to give up their information. It should not be telling any company what to do, except for enforcing these regulations, which force the banks, on one's consent, to give one's banking information back.

The open banking industry fintechs have been fighting to get through this. They are doing it all illegally right now on the backs of only the provinces. The federal government needs to get out of the way.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Today, we are talking about the price of groceries and the food we eat. First, as they start their season, I would like to take a few seconds in the House to thank all those in Quebec's agricultural and processing sectors who feed us. Many of my colleagues from all parties, especially those of the Bloc Québécois, are from Quebec agricultural ridings that feed our cities. In particular, I am thinking of the member from Montcalm and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I feel it is very important to acknowledge the work of people in the agricultural sector. They work hard under tough market conditions. Global warming and climate conditions do not help. Bad weather adds to all the economic hardship these people face. However, in the past year, the federal government has offered virtually no meaningful programs to help them. I therefore want to recognize their work.

Today, we are debating this NDP motion. I have mixed feelings about it because we know the NDP has something of talent for making accurate diagnoses but proposing solutions that, to put it politely, are inappropriate and ill-conceived. Maybe it is because of incompetence. I cannot say. Anyway, the NDP makes diagnoses.

For example, they said people need dental care. Their solution was to ask the government with the least competence and no jurisdiction in this area to implement a program that violates the Constitution by sending cheques to people, making them wait and not clearly outlining the parameters to them, not to mention that its management was turned over to the private sector.

A diagnosis with a bad solution is the hallmark of the NDP. It is the same thing with the pharmacare system. The New Democrats are good at stating the obvious: In their opinion, people need prescription drugs. I thank the NDP, because no one here had any idea. Here again, the NDP comes up with a solution, namely to call on the federal government to get involved and impose conditions on the provinces. Given that Quebec already has its own plan and is innovating, they are destabilizing that plan and slowing down the progress of Quebec's system, which is still a model in the federation. They are actually slowing down innovation, because a province that is innovating can inspire the other provinces.

That is the hallmark of the NDP. It makes an obvious diagnosis of an obvious problem. In this particular case, let us keep in mind that for 30 years the NDP was not interested in this problem, although it has easily existed for 30 or 40 years in our competition regime. However, after a period of 7%, 8% or 9% annual inflation, the NDP is suddenly interested and is proposing a strange solution. The NDP's solution is to control prices, in other words, cap them.

I am all for discussing the price of food, because it is true that prices have increased. How do we cap the price of groceries? We open a new tower here in Ottawa and fill it with public servants who will search through flyers all day long: Butter will be such and such a price, celery is too expensive in Val-d'Or, maybe beets should be cheaper in Rimouski, and a loaf of bread in Plateau Mont-Royal costs 25¢ too much.

This was already done in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s. They were exceptional measures. It was also done during the Second World War, when they had the Office of Price Administration. That place was filled with public servants who threw papers from one floor to another, as in “the place that sends you mad”, in an Asterix film. At the time, in all the non-communist regimes where this was done, these were exceptional measures implemented in response to an exceptional situation. The problem with what the NDP is proposing is that it is seeking an exceptional measure to address a problem that has become permanent. That is the wrong way to approach the problem.

The same is true of bringing in a windfall profit tax. It might be a good tax. It may be that this tax will not distort markets. Tax specialists tell us that some taxes are better than others in that they are less harmful to the economy, which will come as a surprise to the Conservatives. In the Bloc Québécois, we once proposed a temporary windfall tax on certain profits. It was a surtax on the banks, because they had made excess profits during the pandemic, and those temporary measures could be considered appropriate.

In this case, however, the situation is structural. In 1986, I was four years old. Revealing my age is not something I like doing, but someone put it on Wikipedia so what can I do. In 1986, there were 13 major grocery chains competing with each other. Over the years, some of them swallowed up others. Bigger chains emerged, to the point where today Canada has only three major chains—yes, three. I would remind everyone that geographically speaking, Canada is a very big country, and we have only three chains—five, if we count Costco and Walmart. Target tried but came up short. We started out with 13 large chains and now we are down to five. That is the problem. The problem lies in our competition system. What will we do? Will we let five players divvy up 80% of the market, fill an office tower with public servants and institute price controls? Therein lies the problem.

I will show how easy it is to diagnose the lack of competition here, as well as the obstacles to investment. The profit margin of Canada's major grocery chains is about 5%. People might say that is not a very big margin, but we are dealing here with a volume market where five players share 80% of the market. Five per cent is a fairly large margin, because in Europe the average margin is 3%. In the United States the average margin is 2%. Furthermore, since there is more competition in the U.S., there is more innovation. One of the leading competition law specialists testified in committee that, unlike here in Canada, there is a differentiated offer in the U.S., in that grocery stores are different from one another and there are different models. Here in Canada, however, when people walk into one grocery store or another, they can see they are all the same. They could change their name tomorrow and we would not even notice a difference.

I said profit margins are 5% in Canada and 2% in the United States. In a functional market, what should happen in this situation? Eventually, an American chain would decide it is no crazier than anybody else, and it would come open grocery stores in Canada and make 5%.

What is happening instead? We have a Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, whom I admire for his boundless energy, flying to the U.S. so he can chase down grocers and beg them to open stores here. Clearly, there is an investment issue. There is something wrong when Bloomberg says that Canada has become a top investment destination for some industries, yet American grocery retailers just kilometres away do not want to come here.

Why? Maybe it is because there is still anti-competitive behaviour going on, there are regulatory barriers, and the other players are too big. The NDP does not mention this, however. It did not do this analysis, and that is why we will continue to live in a market dominated by a handful of major players.

Yes, improvements have been made. The commissioner of competition has been given the power to subpoena witnesses and compel them to produce documents. He has been given the power to launch investigations. His powers have been enhanced, but this is like moving from the Stone Age to the Iron Age. Just a few months ago, Canada's competition regime was the same as it was in the 1980s, and it is changing at a snail's pace. However, all competing markets give their commissioners more powers. They give them more freedom. There is always a presumption in favour of consumers, and the commissioner does not have to constantly go to court, only to lose the case in the end.

We need a major overhaul and regulatory reform. This would require a Parliament that cares about competition and innovation. It would also require stable and predictable supply chains, as well as local production. Free trade is great, but it requires reciprocity of standards, because we are importing products treated with pesticides that are banned in Canada. When the pandemic hit, obviously, supply chains broke down. This would be part of the solution.

Today's motion gives us an opportunity to talk about and debate food prices. Food is the second highest household expense item. Unfortunately, however, I have my doubts that filling office towers with public servants to control prices is an appropriate way to address a situation that deserves a considerable amount of our attention.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know that the member did not talk about nutrition north in his intervention very much, but that has been the focus of my debate. There are constituents of members of the Bloc Party who can have access to the nutrition north program, and I am specifically talking about the Inuit communities in Nunavik. I wonder what he has to say about the nutrition north program's not having a positive impact on the Inuit communities in Nunavik.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for her relevant and important question.

Obviously, we agree on this aspect of the NDP's motion. We need to recognize the geographic uniqueness of communities, particularly in the Far North and in the territories. Indeed, increasing funding for these programs responds to a request from the communities. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports this request.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the initiatives that I think we have not talked much about is the food price data hub. I find it quite interesting that we can actually educate consumers through a data bank that ultimately shows the average price of food. It is personalized to an individual's province, and it is interesting to go through it. I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts in regards to having such data banks and how they could be of benefit, especially when competition is not where it should be.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course, giving customers more information means giving them a tool that allows them to do the best they can. However, given the state of competition in Canada, this information will let consumers see they are being gouged and paying too much.

We can go ahead and create all sorts of databases and give the price range for a grocery item on a portal, but if the lowest price on the portal is still too high, that means there is a competition problem. Adding a tool to diagnose the problem will not necessarily solve the problem. We have to address the lack of competition, make Canada attractive for investors and make it possible for the commissioner of competition to do his work freely and with fewer barriers.

I think that, after that, if the hon. member for Winnipeg-North develops his database, he will notice a drop in prices.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague gave an excellent speech.

Certainly I agree with the member when he talked about the comparison of the solution being taxation or more competition. Obviously I would support more competition. However, would he not also agree that a percentage of a higher number results in a higher number? For example, the retailers claim that they have maintained their margins throughout the whole pandemic, yet of course with the rising costs, their profits have come to record levels on a nominal basis. Therefore, would not an additional solution, besides more competition, be the removal of costs in our supply chain, like the carbon tax, like other tariffs that impact farmers, and things of that nature?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have spent three minutes without talking about the carbon tax. I think that is a record. I thank my colleague for reminding us of his political position.

We can work on the production costs of groceries, but the Conservatives always lean toward the most polluting option. There are many ways to reduce the costs of groceries. There are many sources of taxation. There are zoning issues that are provincial. Most of these things are not provincial. However, let us be clear, all that interests the Conservatives is oil.

I think that impeding the fight against climate change is no way to increase competition in a market where the profit margin is more than double what it is in the United States. That is a false solution.

The Conservatives are trying to deceive the people by trying to make them believe that axing the carbon tax will solve all of humanity's problems. I think these people should start working on a serious political platform that is more complex and more adapted to the complex world we are living in now.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday evening we were debating a Conservative amendment to a Standing Committee on Finance report. This amendment sought to revive the proposal we had voted against just a few hours earlier, the miracle solution of the tax holiday that would last all summer. The taxes would resume once the House was back in session, just in time for us to collectively complain about their return.

Earlier yesterday, we were debating the simplistic solution to the fight against high grocery prices, because, as we know, in addition to solving all the world's ills, world hunger, the cancer and AIDS epidemics and all other problems, axing the tax on carbon will also guarantee more affordable food prices for all. In fact, if we abolish the carbon tax, food costs would go down to zero and everyone would eat for free.

A day after the Conservatives' simplistic motion, we are studying a simplistic motion moved by the NDP. We are shifting from a tax break to a price cap. I will read the NDP motion, as I will be talking about the three proposals it contains. There are some good ideas in there, but the Bloc Québécois cannot support it as a whole. It reads as follows:

That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys make record profits, the House call on the government to:

(a) force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap or other measures;

(b) stop delaying long-needed reforms to the Nutrition North program; and

(c) stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.

The first thing is the basic wording, “That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants make record profits”. We all agree on that. However, we run into the same problem that we saw with the Conservatives. They focus on the perfectly legitimate public anger, but then offer simplistic solutions instead of truly addressing the root of the problem.

Let us begin with point (a): “force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap”. Say we support it. Now I would want to know how we are supposed to do this. Is there a how-to manual? How do we go about imposing a cap on the price of bread, for example, when wheat prices are negotiated at the Toronto Stock Exchange? How do we go about imposing a cap on the price of fresh vegetables, when prices are skyrocketing mainly because of crop losses due to drought or flooding, which are caused by climate change?

Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP does believe in climate change. However, the NDP continues to support the budgetary policies introduced by the Liberals, who are always giving handouts to oil companies, even though they contribute more to climate change than any other sector.

How do we force farmers to lower their prices when the price of nitrogen fertilizer has quadrupled? The price per tonne jumped from $250 to $1,000 between 2020 and 2022. How do we force a Californian produce grower to sell their broccoli cheaper in Canada than in the United States? Does the NDP think it can wave a magic wand and cap prices without creating shortages?

Point (a) is impractical and unfeasible, which is already reason enough for the Bloc Québécois to vote against the motion, despite the good intentions behind it.

Now, let us look at the enhancement of the nutrition north program. I will start by saying that this is a good measure. Since 2011, nutrition north has subsidized grocers in the far north to compensate for the high cost of transportation and lower the price of groceries. However, the program does not fully compensate for the high costs, which are due not just to transportation costs but also to low volumes and higher operating costs. Considering that the average income in the Inuit community is around $23,000 a year, which is shockingly low, it is clear that food insecurity must be a widespread problem.

Businesses offer workers from outside the community a golden bridge to encourage them to work in the north. The income of non-indigenous individuals is approximately $95,000 a year, according to a study by Gérard Duhaime, a professor at Université Laval with whom I rubbed shoulders in a previous life.

We agree with that part of the motion. If that was all the motion contained, both my colleague from Mirabel and I would have given very short speeches, two minutes at most. We would merely have said that we supported the motion. Unfortunately, all the rest of it dilutes and undermines the proposal's credibility.

The third point calls on the government to “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers”. The only thing we want to know is what that is referring to. The NDP often talks about a subsidy that Loblaw received a few years ago to replace its refrigerators with more energy-efficient models. That in itself is no scandal. I think we all aspire to that.

Besides that, the only handout I see the Liberals and Conservatives giving big grocers is their inaction. By doing nothing, by remaining silent and not taking action, they are giving them an indirect handout. In fact, there are no subsidy programs specifically for grocers, apart from nutrition north, for which the NDP is asking for more funding today. The NDP supports the only subsidy that exists. It is asking the government to enhance and improve the program, and that is what we are asking for as well.

As mentioned earlier, the companies that are really gorging on subsidies are the oil companies. In the past two years, the federal government has given them subsidy after subsidy. That was always the case, but it did not stop when the infamous coalition agreement with the NDP was signed. The tax breaks set out in all the budgets and economic statements will total $83 billion by 2035. That is more than $2,000 per capita, or almost $4,000 per taxpayer. The NDP keeps supporting every budget, every economic statement and every appropriation, no questions asked, in the name of an agreement to further intrude on Quebec's jurisdictions.

This spring, Parliament has been seized with bills C-59 and C-69. Today, the Standing Committee on Finance is voting as part of the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑69. They could be at it until midnight tonight. It provides $48 billion in tax breaks mostly for the oil companies. Does the NDP support that? The answer is yes.

Since I only have two minutes left, I will finish my speech quickly. I will try to talk as fast as an auctioneer at those events we all occasionally attend in our ridings.

That being said, there is a real problem. I must emphasize that. The grocery industry is dominated by a handful of moguls, namely Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro. In 2022 alone, these three companies, the most affluent companies in the sector, reported over $100 billion in sales and drew in profits exceeding $3.6 billion. Yes, there is a competition problem. Small entrepreneurs have a hard time breaking into the market, since the grocery giants control everything. With a mixture of astonishment and consternation, we are seeing the growing concentration in the sector make it harder and harder for new entrants to break into the market or expand, making competition almost non-existent.

According to a 2023 Competition Bureau report, a grocery sector strategy is urgently needed. If the Liberals and Conservatives are giving these giants any handouts, it is by not having a strategy. That is the handout.

Let us agree on the fact that there are several possible solutions. We need to make it easier for foreign investors to enter the market. We need to increase the number of independent grocers. We also need to have clearer and more harmonized requirements for unit pricing. We also need to take measures to discourage, or even prohibit, property controls in the grocery sector. These controls restrict competing grocers from leasing space in the same building. They make opening new grocery stores much more difficult, if not impossible, and this reduces competition in our communities.

Why is competition so important? It is the backbone of the economy. Simplistic solutions are not the answer. The answer is more competition in the grocery sector.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to listen to my colleague.

The French government forced big companies to lower prices on approximately 5,000 grocery items. This approach was copied by South Korea and Greece for other tools and other measures.

Does my colleague agree with what the NDP is proposing today, namely the approach of using government measures and tools to lower the price of essential foods and forcing companies to lower their prices, like France, Greece and South Korea did?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to repeat everything I already said, but in my remarks, I highlighted several completely unrealistic aspects concerning prices that have nothing to do with public will, but rather result from all sorts of factors, including wheat prices, which are determined in Chicago, or vegetable prices, which are going up because of climate change. There are plenty of similar examples to show that, all in all, this proposal is unrealistic. The problem, unlike in South Korea or France, is the concentration in our grocery sector. That is the real issue. It is concentrated among a handful of grocery giants.

My colleague's proposal consists of putting in place an interim, temporary solution because the situation has reached alarming levels and something has to be done. All right, but if we do that without attacking the structural, central, permanent problem, which is the growing monopolies in this sector, there will always be a problem with prices, unless the proposed price cap is permanent, which no one seems to be suggesting today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the issue of caps has a lot to do with the supply end and with the end result. My question to the member is in regard to the idea of enhanced competition. We did have six large grocery companies. Shoppers was the last one that folded into Loblaw. In part, that sent a very strong message in itself, and it was one reason we had to change and to modernize the Competition Act.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the important role that the Competition Act and the commission play in ensuring that there is stability in prices.