Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2024

Department of Employment and Social Development Act

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

moved that Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 69(2), I have the honour to present to the House the Senate bill, Bill S-244, on behalf of my friend, who is from Quebec, Senator Diane Bellemare. It is an act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act, employment insurance council, which was passed by the Senate on Tuesday, June 18.

This bill aims to create an employment insurance council to strengthen social dialogue by seeking to create within the Employment Insurance Act an advisory council for the Employment Insurance Commission, which would be co-chaired by two commissioners representing the labour market: the commissioner for workers and the commissioner for employers.

This bill has the support of representatives from major employer and worker associations in Canada and reflects the NDP's values of supporting the working class by ensuring that workers have a seat at the economic decision-making tables. I look forward to working with all colleagues across the House to see the legislation passed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be concurred in.

Today, we are here to talk about food prices and food price volatility.

It is no secret that the cost of food has risen dramatically. We are seeing record numbers of people visiting food banks. In fact, in Ontario, one million people used a food bank last year. Food bank use since 2019 has gone up 135%. This has never happened in my lifetime. In the past three years, rent and groceries are up 40%. Canadians are spending 43% of their income on tax. That is more than housing, food and clothing combined.

It is easy to look at food prices in the grocery store and blame the big grocers for the high cost of food, but blaming them does not get to the root cause of the problem and why food has become so expensive. The bottom line is that the NDP-Liberal government's policies and regulations are driving up the cost of food and the cost for farmers to produce food.

We have heard this time and time again, and I am not afraid to say it again, and I will say it as many times as I need to, that the Conservatives will axe the tax. However, in the meantime, we need to pass Bill C-234, unamended, and give farmers a reprieve from the carbon tax.

I will give members an idea of why the carbon tax impacts the cost of food so much.

If we look at the supply chain from start to finish, every single step along that supply chain is facing increased costs, which can be related directly back to the carbon tax. Sometimes they are paying multiple times in carbon tax. For instance, farmers have to pay for fertilizer, and we are getting taxed right now on fertilizer. How does the fertilizer get from the fertilizer company to the field? It is trucked. We use trucks for everything in the country in order to get things from wherever it needs to be, from the farm or back to the field or from the field back to the farm. When we increase the cost of fuel for these trucks, which are not exempt from the carbon tax or from any fuel taxes for that matter, it is absolutely going to increase the cost of the production.

However, we should not believe everything the Liberals tell us, or when we hear that farmers are exempt from taxes on their farm fuel. There is a slight bit of truth to that, but for the most part, on modern farms today, we are not using just tractors anymore. Yes, tractors are exempt and any equipment that does not use a roadway is exempt. However, from experience on my own farm, we use transport trucks to get the potatoes from the field back to the farm to the packing house.

If we look at the prairies, farmers have to truck grain from the field back to the farm to put it in the bins for storage. What is the most economical way to get products from the field back to the farm for storage? It is using big transport trucks and taking less loads from the field back to the farm. It saves on fuel, first, and it save on costs. However, when those trucks are not exempt from the carbon tax, or any taxes for that matter, it increases the cost for doing business for farmers.

What is the end result of that? Farmers cannot eat up all those costs. It comes off their bottom line. It comes off what they would have as extra income to invest back into their farming operations. Of course, those costs are going to get passed on to the next part in the chain, whether that is direct to the consumer or direct to a wholesaler. In my instance, I have to increase my costs. When my costs go up, I have to recoup those costs as I cannot afford to eat them. At the end of the day, consumers and Canadians at the grocery store are going to pay more because of the carbon tax.

If folks are watching and they are from a city, they may not know where their food comes from. Out on the prairies, the fields can be 10 to 80 kilometres away from the home farm. For instance, some of our farms are 80 to 100 kilometres away from the home farm. We have no choice but to truck the goods from those fields back to the farm. Even if a farm is 10 kilometres away from the home farm, to go 10 times a day back and forth is 100 kilometres driven. Imagine how much fuel is being consumed on just transporting food from point A to point B at the farm gate, and I am not talking beyond the farm gate here. Therefore, the cost of that carbon tax on truckers is immense, and it is immense for the farmers.

If we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who ships the food, Canadians are the ones who are going to pay more for the food. It is common sense.

One of the other policies the NDP-Liberal government has put forward that will greatly impact the cost of food is its ban on plastics for fresh produce. I have talked about this in the House before, but it is worth talking about again because this would have such a profound impact on the fresh food we eat. Two-thirds of the produce Canadians eat is imported from other countries, and if we ban plastic on produce, we will see a 34% increase in the cost of fresh produce in this country, on top of what we are already seeing as high costs for food.

It will also reduce the availability of fresh produce to Canadians by over 50%. Members can imagine 50% less choice in the grocery store for Canadians. It will cost the industry $5.6 billion. On top of this, it will have a 50% increase in greenhouse gases on the produce supply chain because of rotting produce. It is also going to increase CO2 emissions from the rotting produce.

I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan today.

When we talk about the 50% increase in greenhouse gases from rotting produce, that does not include the increased transportation costs to truck more food and have more trucks on the road going to grocery stores because we are going to need more food. It is going to increase the health care costs by over $1 billion per year.

Back in my riding and across the country, when I have talked to folks, I have talked to moms who have told me they have no choice but to cut back on the food they are buying for their families. They have to find somewhere to slash their budgets. I talked to one mom in particular who told me she could not afford to buy any out-of-season produce anymore. She is only be able to afford what is on sale at the grocery store for produce and will have to buy bigger quantities. Her kids will have to go without fresh food because she cannot afford it anymore. That is terrible. We must think of the increased cost to our health this is going to have when parents cannot afford to buy nutritious food for their children.

Another factor we need to take into account when considering why our prices are going to go up is the fact that the majority of Canadians live in rural and remote communities. I have had the privilege and honour, for the last five years, of representing Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, which is a completely rural community. I have travelled to rural communities across this country, including up into the north, into Whitehorse and Yukon, and there is a real issue when it comes to food insecurity and the price of food. If we see trucking costs go up, and we see less production and less availability of fresh produce, how are these people, who live in rural remote communities, going to be able to access nutritious food? They are going to have a hard time.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that the cost of this plastics ban will add $1.9 billion in customer costs. Nationwide, we stand to lose 60,000 jobs. We also hear that insurance rates are up due to vehicle thefts, break-ins and damages, and farmers have to pay higher insurance rates because of this. Vehicle insurance rates in Canada are up over 6% year over year. I have had some constituents tell me their insurance rates have doubled in some areas.

If we look at the whole supply chain and all the things farmers have to do to run their business, and if the costs are up everywhere, of course food costs are going to be up. Farmers have no choice but to pass these costs on down the line, and then every step along the supply chain has price increases and they need to be passed on. The result is Canadians having to pay more for food from the store.

Here is another piece of common sense: no farms equals no food. Government red tape is up. Insurance costs are up. Heating costs are up. Grain drying costs are up. Taxes are up. Crime is up. Time is up. Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, and we will bring down food prices for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-63. It is interesting that, once again, after four days and four different pieces of legislation being introduced, the “hungry and thirsty for power” Conservatives have brought in a concurrence motion to try to change the channel. This is the fourth time.

Why does the Conservative Party have such a lack of respect for Canadians that it is prepared to do whatever it takes to play a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons in not allowing legislation to even be debated?

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

Madam Speaker, I actually have a lot of respect for Canadians. I respect them so much that I am here fighting on behalf of my constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and every single farmer across this country who has seen the government's bad policies and bad regulations, a lot of times without consultation, driving up their costs of production. In fact, they are driving some farms out of business. That is a problem for Canadians.

Farm families tell me that they cannot afford to keep farming and that next generations cannot afford to take over the family farm, thanks to another policy of the government and its capital gains tax increase. The root cause of these problems in Canada is the NDP-Liberal government, which does not respect our farmers or agriculture sector and refuses to stand up for family farms.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague admit that grocery prices have risen significantly and that families and individuals are struggling because of it. I hope that she will support the NDP's proposals. Right now, we are the only ones who are saying that we need to stabilize and control prices by capping the price of certain essential foods for families.

I am surprised that I did not hear her talking today about the scourge that is the paper or cardboard lids on cups at Tim Hortons, since she has made a lot of videos about this issue in recent weeks and months. I would like to know whether keeping plastic around is the Conservative Party's only suggestion for the environment.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been in this place now for five years and had the honour of representing Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and farmers in my riding and across this country.

It is a bit rich for the NDP to say that Conservatives do not care about food prices. From day one in this Parliament, we have said that we need to get rid of taxes, bring taxes down for farmers and axe the carbon tax so that farmers can have a reprieve. Especially, if we can pass Bill C-234 unamended, that will help our farmers. I do not understand why the member will not just stand with us, help pass Bill C-234 and give farmers a reprieve from the carbon tax now.

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

Madam Speaker, we focus a lot on the carbon tax in this place but without looking at the climate crisis and the real impact it has on Canadian farmers. We really want to support the family farm. We know that people living on farms are experiencing suicides. It is an extremely difficult life right now.

Removing carbon pricing on things such as drying grains is one thing. However, if we ignore the biggest economic threat to farmers, we are missing the larger picture. That is the climate crisis, with increased drought, aridification, floods and the kinds of disasters that mean that crops do not come to fruition and farmers do not get money off the fields at the end of the season.

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

Madam Speaker, the government policies are driving farmers to the breaking point right now. Fertilizer has increased by 80%, machine fuel by 78.5%, machinery costs by 20%, pesticides by 7%, feed by 29% and shelter, including barns and sheds, by 13%. That is all because of the NDP-Liberal government's policies.

Farmers are the best stewards of our land and the ones who make our bread and butter from it. Conservatives care about the land. If we do not take care of our land and are not stewards of it, we will not have a livelihood.

Conservatives will always stand up for farmers, the benefit of the agriculture sector and what is best for farmers.

Alleged Violation of Standing Order 116 at Standing Committee on Public Accounts

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order; specifically, it relates to Standing Orders 116(2)(a) and 116(2)(b). This is in relation to events that took place earlier today at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I understand that the Speaker does not normally become involved with the business of committees, but there are occasions when the Speaker has intervened. I think this may be one of those occasions.

During debate on a motion today in committee, my hand was up to speak prior to the vote being called, but the chair called the vote regardless. I immediately indicated that my hand was up to speak, but the chair ignored my request and proceeded to a vote. This exchange can be found in the videos of today's meeting.

As you know, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 116(2)(a) states:

Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

Standing Order 116(2)(b) states:

A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

The exchange that happened in committee can be seen on video; not only this, but the rules of the House also apply at committee. In the House, we take members at their word. I state categorically that my hand was up to speak to the motion and that I had indicated it to the chair before the vote.

I would respectfully ask that the Speaker look into this, deem that the proceedings on the motion be nullified and allow the debate to continue so that I am able to speak, as I had indicated my desire to do so.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member bringing this point of order to the House. We will look into the matter and return to the House with a response if required.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate today on the concurrence of the 18th report of the Standing Committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food on food price inflation.

I find it very strange that the Liberal member would talk about tying up the House's time on things he thinks are not important. When I was in my riding of Regina—Lewvan and our communities all summer, one of the major topics was the price of food and how it is getting harder to make ends meet each day.

We know that taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. It is time to have these discussions, and it is time for a carbon tax election. That is what Canadians want. Seventy per cent of Canadians think that the carbon tax should be axed. It is one of the major reasons costs are going up at our grocery stores.

We saw this in some of the comments made at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. As a member of the committee, I was able to partake in the meetings. Some of the comments especially focused on the carbon tax. One such comment was made by Mr. Ron Lemaire of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. He reported that the greenhouse vegetable sector, for example, estimates that the carbon tax will have an annual cost on his operations of $22 million this year. This amount is projected to increase to as much as $100 million by 2030. What do members think that does to the price of vegetables in our grocery stores, if that is the cost being incurred by our vegetable growers across our country?

Another comment was made by Mr. Keith Currie of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He noted that the carbon tax accounts for as much as 40% of energy bills in some agricultural sectors. He called for a time-limited and targeted exemption; he would like to see an exemption from the carbon tax.

Another thing that a lot of stakeholders talked about in our committee was the fact that they would love to see Bill C-234 passed, and that is the exemption from the carbon tax for heating barns for grain drying. This is something that our producers desperately need. Mr. Currie went on to say something about the mental health of our producers; the member from Saanich—Gulf Islands also talked about this. Can we imagine having to pay a bill that is ever-increasing and would eventually take millions of dollars out of our pockets? That is the pressure that our agriculture producers are facing.

One thing needing to be mentioned is that many members on the Conservative side come from family farms. The member who just spoke has family that has been in agriculture for generations. I grew up on a dairy and beef farm, and I have cousins who still ranch. These are not just random numbers. These are our family members and our constituents. That is why this is so important to the members on this side of the House, to the Conservative members of Parliament.

For a Liberal to say that this is just fluff and does not matter, that it is just a tactic, is actually quite insulting to the men and women who produce our food and put food on the table. The member should apologize for that comment.

I want to talk about the pressure that our men and women are facing in agriculture. What this brings to the forefront is that it is not just the carbon tax. As I hear all the time, it is also a tax on the tax. It is the GST being paid by our producers on top of the carbon tax. The PBO has done some reports on this, which say that $486 million in GST will be paid on the carbon tax. By 2030, $1 billion a year will be paid just in GST on the carbon tax. The carbon tax is going to blow a $30-billion to $40-billion hole in our economy, and the agriculture sector is going to account for the lion's share of that money. There is pressure.

My colleague said it well, and it is worth repeating: If we tax the farmer who produces the food, the trucker who buys the food and the stores that sell the food, it only stands to reason that we are going to tax each and every Canadian who goes to the store and buys the food. This is what as common sense would indicate.

That is the point we are trying to get at. We know that the sellout NDP members have voted for the carbon tax 24 times. Because they were in trouble in the Elmwood—Transcona by-election, the leader of the NDP had a come-to-Jesus moment and said, “No, we are not against the carbon tax.” Now he says that they want to vote against it.

Now we are going to see another flip-flop because the NDP eked out a win in one of its seven safest seats in Canada, where I think they lost 20 points. That flip-flop was strictly to play politics to try to fool Canadians, just like the ripping up of the supply and confidence agreement. Can members believe that? It is two flip-flops in two days. I am surprised the hon. NDP leader did not pull something. First he was for the government and then he was against the government, and on Wednesday he will be for the government again. It is hard to keep track. Now the NDP in B.C. is also against the carbon tax. It is unbelievable how many times people have changed their minds on the carbon tax over the last week in NDP land.

I have a great deal of respect for the men and women in our agriculture sector. They do the hard work of feeding Canadians and feeding the world. One thing we hear from some of the Liberal members on the agriculture committee is that we need to do more. Why do some of the Liberal and NDP members on this committee not give the agriculture sector credit for what it has done so well already? Saskatchewan, which has done so much to create environmental sustainability in the agriculture sector, uses rotational grazing for cattle and crop rotation, with different crops taking out different nutrients from the soil. Western Canada pioneered that. We have also done great work when it comes to zero tillage and straight head combining, where there is less machinery on the field.

There have been so many innovations that we should be proud of as the Canadians who represent the men and women in the agriculture sector, and we should take them to the world. Imagine exporting our great agricultural practices to other countries around the world so they catch up. That would lower world emissions. If we want to tackle environmental sustainability, we should talk about some of the good things we are doing on the world stage instead of always acting like we should be embarrassed by our agriculture and energy sectors.

We know that right now we do not have any champions for agriculture in the current government. We have talked about this many times in Saskatchewan, where agriculture is still the backbone of the economy. Why is it that every time Liberals come into government, their agriculture minister sits at the kids' table?

We know that one of the biggest problems with the government's ag policy is that it is being made in the health and environment departments, not in the agriculture department. It is being made by people who have never been on a farm. That is why we see continuous increases, whether it is in red tape, taxes or policies, like wanting to reduce fertilizer use by 35%. Do members know how much that is going to lower yields for our producers? Talk about putting more mental strain on them. We are hand-tying them on what they do best by telling them what they can and cannot put on their fields. That is reminiscent of socialist Russia, which I think some members in the Liberals would enjoy seeing. The activist Minister of Environment has said that he is a proud socialist. He would love to tell agriculture producers what they should and should not be doing with their own land.

To address how we can lower food prices immediately, we can axe the tax and make sure no one is paying a tax on a tax by taking GST off the carbon tax. We can allow our producers to use technology and the great practices of farming, not tie their hands by telling them how much fertilizer to put on their fields. First and foremost, what we need is a common-sense Conservative government that will not have an ag minister sitting at the kids' table and that will bring policy forward that helps instead of hurts our producers. That is what the Conservatives will deliver to Canadians when we have the carbon tax election that 70% of Canadians want.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, even though I wanted to speak about government legislation on online harms, it is always an honour and privilege to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo.

Although they have a diversity of perspectives and experiences, the one thing the majority of my constituents reference is the climate crisis and how to take it seriously. I will reference an article from May 16, 2021, because the member did refer to flip-flops and I feel that the Conservatives flip-flop more than anybody else. The member for Calgary Signal Hill said he was answering dozens of emails and phone calls: “There’s no question I’ve had a number of constituents, and I think I’m not talking out of turn when I say so probably have every other western Conservative MP”. These constituents were asking members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, “Why the flip-flop?” He told the Canadian Press that it was important they did this.

Why did they campaign on a price on pollution only to come to the House and lie—mislead Canadians?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member did catch herself.

I just want to remind members to be very careful of the words they use in the House. They can end up causing disorder, and then we end up disrupting the proceedings.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not do this very often, but to quote a Liberal minister, we will take no lessons from them when it comes to flip-flopping and breaking promises.

The Liberals have broken many promises to Canadians. Do members remember when they were going to have a couple of small deficits and then balance the budget in 2015? Do members remember when they promised to lower emissions in 2015 and 2019? They have not. Do members remember when the Liberals said the carbon tax will never go above $50 a tonne, a target they blew past?

We will take no lessons from them and their broken promises, which we have seen in every campaign since 2015 under the current Prime Minister.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I did not intend to cause havoc in the House. I apologize. I am glad I was able to catch myself, but my intentions were not to use a word that was inappropriate in this chamber.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about a number of things in his speech. However, he did not mention a recommendation that many farmers regularly bring up with me. Some Canadian processors in the riding of Shefford have their office in Granby. I am referring to the following recommendation:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada increase staffing and the regularity of inspections at the border to ensure compliance, and that the government require that imported products meet the same quality standards—including environmental, labour, and growing standards—as domestic products, while ensuring it respects its trade obligations.

This is about reciprocal standards, a really crucial issue I hear a lot about in the riding of Shefford, which is home to many farmers.

What does my colleague think about the cutbacks made at the Canada Border Services Agency between 2007 and 2011, back when I was an assistant there?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that there needs to be more border security. We could use the $67 million from the Liberals' phony gun buyback plan and put some of that money into the border to have more people at border services.

Another thing about processing that is really hurting farmers' bottom lines is trucking. Canadian Trucking Alliance members just said that the carbon tax is going to cost them $26 billion by 2030. That is going to hit farmers in the pocketbook as well. It is another tax on a tax.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saskatchewan brought up the election in Elmwood—Transcona, and I am sure he joins all members of this House in congratulating Leila Dance on being the newest MP in the House.

He talked a lot about flip-flops, and I have to follow up on that. The New Democrats have put forward a number of different motions and solutions for the price of groceries, yet the Conservatives have voted against them every single time. Aside from their one-trick pony, which is the carbon tax, does he have any solution that would help with prices?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a question coming from anyone in this House. Everyone has the right to ask questions. However, for a member of the NDP to stand up and talk about anything other than the inconsistency of their leader and how he sold out Canadians for his pension is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was trying to rise to ask a question of the the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, but then I heard the shot toward the hon. member for Burnaby South. It is unparliamentary to suggest that the member sold out the country for his pension. I know that in this House we cannot be charged with slander, but that certainly is unparliamentary.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members to be extremely careful with the language they use and how they choose to identify others. The House of Commons is meant for debating the policies of government, not attacking individuals. I want members to please reflect on that before they make comments.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is rising on a point of order.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member who spoke previously mentioned the name of a soon-to-be MP in this chamber. I thought that was against the rules. Could you please clarify that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has not been sworn in, as far as I know. She is not officially a member until she is sworn in, if I am correct, but I will double-check that and get back to the House if need be.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, here we are again, just the second week into the fall session, and this is the fourth concurrence report brought in by the official opposition. This once again reinforces, for anyone who follows the debate via CPAC and wants an understanding of what is taking place in Ottawa, that the Conservatives are going out of their way to quench their thirst for power, as opposed to trying to deliver in a very real and tangible way for Canadians.

Today, the Conservatives brought forward this motion for concurrence to talk about farmers, the carbon rebate and interest in regard to the price on food. I find it interesting that they have chosen to debate that today. If my memory serves me correctly, I cannot recall once when the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right, thought this issue was important enough to bring forward to the House for debate on an opposition day. We have had dozens of opposition days, and not once have the Conservatives raised the issue that is the focus of the concurrence report.

The Conservatives like to say that this is about farmers and Canadians. Well, I do not believe it. If any of the Conservatives have the courage to debate me in any university or other post-secondary facility, I would welcome it, just to show how abusive the Conservatives are when we are trying to be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians. In fact, the Conservatives have had two members speak about the report. They are the ones who thought it was so important to debate this report. However, did either member who spoke even make reference to the response to the report that was provided by the department and the minister? No.

We are already half an hour into discussion, and while the Conservatives had a detailed response to the report, no reference has been made to it whatsoever. It does not surprise me, because as every member of the House of Commons knows, this is not about the issue the Conservatives have raised today. They are using an issue that Canadians are genuinely concerned about, which I agree is a concern, to sidestep legislation and prevent the government from being able to pass it.

My colleague and friend from Waterloo referenced that she was hoping to debate Bill C-63, which we started this morning. The Conservatives have said that if this bill passes and we get a Conservative government, they will repeal the law. We understand that they do not support the legislation, even though the interests of Canadians are represented in it, but this is what we were supposed to be debating today.