Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2024

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are a few interventions being made that should not be made at this point in time. Hon. members will have 10 minutes of questions and comments. I would ask them to wait until the appropriate time for that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the last federal election, a mandate was given to each political party in this chamber, not just the governing party. Members of the official opposition have a responsibility to Canadians too, not only to their leader and the far right of this country, and they are not living up to that responsibility. Why? Because of their thirst for power and nothing else. I say shame on them for that attitude.

There has been other legislation, even legislation they support. I am thinking of Bill C-66 last week, when the Conservatives brought in a concurrence motion to prevent debate on that legislation. That is not to say the food issue is not important. We know it is. That is why we have taken legislative and budgetary action to support Canadians, all of which the Conservative Party has voted against and filibustered. Imagine the hypocrisy from the other side when they try to say they have the interests of farmers in mind. Any objective person can see through the misinformation that is constantly spewed from the Conservative Party, the Conservative-Reform party. It is never-ending.

We can take a look at it. Conservatives talk about grocery prices and lobbyists. Need I remind them of Jenni Byrne's name? Of course not, because the Conservatives know her well. She sits in a part of their caucus. She is someone who had a very close relationship with their current leader when he was in a former government. She was a lobbyist and an adviser to Harper. Why is that important? Because she is a lobbyist to her firm for the grocery—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. If individuals want to have conversations, then they should hold them outside. I would ask them not to heckle and to wait until the appropriate time for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it does make someone wonder when—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, this member is going off on all kinds of tangents. He is bringing in things that really have nothing to do with the business of the House, and I would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Which standing order is the point of order affecting?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is being both irrelevant and unparliamentary in the insinuation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. It is starting to be disrespectful.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is disrespectful when opposition member after member is trying to disrupt the comments I am trying to put on the record. Every word I have spoken is the truth. I understand that it might make them feel a little uncomfortable, but that is just too bad.

At the end of the day—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just ask you to rule on whether this is relevant to the actual motion that is currently being debated.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. members know full well that there is some latitude when debates are happening. I do want to make sure members are aware they need to bring it back to the motion. On both sides, during debates, some members have gone off-script a bit, and I would just ask them to bring it back. However, I also want to ask members to please be respectful and follow the orders of the House, which are to not disrupt individuals or heckle, and to not have conversations while someone else has the floor. If they wish to have those conversations, they should take them out in the lobby.

On another point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, only because of the constant interruptions, on a point of issue of relevancy, I was referring to Jenni Byrne, who is a lobbyist for the grocery—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is actually going into a debate. I would ask the member to go on with his speech and make sure it is relevant. I would ask the same thing of the hon. members who will be taking the floor today. I would also ask members to maybe read up on the rules of the House about when to speak, or not, in the House, please.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would add to some of your comments that if members opposite are feeling uncomfortable with the truth, they do have a choice. They do not have to sit in the chamber and listen. They can always exit the chamber. That way, they will not be as hurt or their feelings—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have ruled on this. I think it is not proper to be reflecting on what I have just said when I am closing the door on it, so I would ask the parliamentary secretary to go on with his debate, and I would ask members not to interrupt as well.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will go right to the debate.

The Conservative Party tries to give the impression that it actually cares and wants to see action taken on the issue of food pricing. Let us do a comparison between Stephen Harper or the current leader of the Conservative Party, and the government of today.

We have five major grocery chains in Canada. We used to have six. The reason we went from six to five is that the Stephen Harper government allowed Shoppers to be joined with one of the big five. Now we have a government that changed the Competition Act, in part to ensure more accountability with those types of company takeovers, protecting the interests of Canadians.

The Conservatives might have good talking points. They might have some great slogans and bumper stickers, but the reality is, and history clearly shows it, that they are quite incompetent. In fact, when we take a look at their policy, we find that it is wanting. They talk about the carbon rebate and the carbon tax, and they are saying—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the carbon rebate and the carbon tax, and they are talking about relevance. They should listen to what their speakers had to say. That was 50% of what they spoke on. Really, they should get a life and try to understand what is happening on the floor today. I say to my colleagues across the way that they have to understand and appreciate that the Government of Canada has taken a number of initiatives.

Let me give a few examples, some very tangible specifics. The national school food program, which the Conservatives opposed, is there to help potentially 400,000 children. It is an investment in children so that they would be able to have food while they learn. Where are the Conservatives on the issue? Again, we find they are offside.

During the peak of food inflation, the government brought in a grocery rebate to put money in the pockets of Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada voted against that. I made reference to the Competition Act, which ensures a higher sense of fairness in the pricing of food, and how competition is so important to that industry, and again, we saw Conservatives filibuster even legislation of that nature.

We could talk about the food price data hub, which is a tool Canadians can use to look at what is actually happening with the price of a number of food commodities. Because education is a budget line type of issue, we find that the Conservative Party also voted against that.

We talk a lot about farmers. I have had the opportunity over the last number of years, from visiting farms, to get a better understanding of Manitoba's agricultural community. In particular, I am talking about our pork industry, about piglets from birth to putting down, and providing the food that is necessary. That industry has grown significantly over the last number of years—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, I am hearing comments and it is not the appropriate time. I would ask hon. members to not do that. The same members over and over again are making those comments. It is not like they have not heard what I just asked of them, so I would ask them to please hold off.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think of the chicken industry in Manitoba. In fact, if we take a look at the chicken industry over the last decade, we will see there are close to 200 new chicken producers. People would not think this was true if they listened to Conservatives. They would think they would be seeing a shrinking of the pork industry, a shrinking of the chicken-processing industry, which is just not true. I have visited not only those industries but also our cattle industry and agriculture communities.

I was flying into Winnipeg from B.C. recently. When people fly in and get under the clouds, they see golden fields with multiple colours, where all forms of crops are coming up. There is a lot to be said about the beauty of the Prairies when one sees the potential harvest there, and how that is dealing with food security not only here in Canada but abroad.

I do not need to be told to appreciate farmers and the fine work they do. I do that naturally and I have done it for many years, both as a parliamentarian and as a young person jumping on a John Deere tractor as it was cultivating. This is something I believe in and I know the government believes in it too.

Earlier this year, we were in the Philippines. The Minister of Agriculture was making an announcement for the opening of an agri-food trade office where we are going to have 30-plus other countries looking for trade. We will be using the Manila office as a place to enhance Canadian trade for agri-food products. We will all benefit by that, in particular our farmers. With the potential markets in that area of the world, there is phenomenal potential for growth. As a government, we are looking to secure that growth for our country, at the same time as feeding the world.

Many initiatives taken by the government deal with the issue the report talks about. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have used this as a way to cause division and to filibuster government legislation. It is not about the issue for them, as I said at the beginning. It is all about how they can cause a disturbance in the chamber, and we saw some of that by the reaction.

When Liberals met as a caucus, we talked about many different issues and concerns in Canada. There are reasons for us to be very optimistic, whether it is the 2% inflation, the downward direction of interest rates or the record foreign investment, especially in comparison with other countries.

Last year, on a per capita basis, we were number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming into Canada; in the world, we were number three. That is all good news. It shows we are moving forward in the right direction, but we do need to continue to work at improving conditions for all Canadians. That is the type of thing we discussed when we went to caucus. We talked about agriculture.

We can contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party's opening comments at its convention. The headline was, “Carbon pricing to cause economic ‘nuclear winter,’ [the leader of the Conservative Party] tells his MPs”. Let me tell members what he had to say.

In his speech to his caucus, he said that the Liberal government's plan to increase the price would cause a “nuclear winter” for the economy. “There would be a mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high...Our seniors would have to turn the heat down to 14 or 13 C just to make it through the winter,” the leader added. “Inflation would run rampant and people would not be able to leave their homes or drive anywhere.”

This is the type of whatever we want to call it. That is how he addressed his caucus. I can tell the House that we have seen that shift to the far right. A lot of the negative things that Canadians do not like about politics coming up from the United States are being ushered in through the Conservative leader's office.

I received an email. I do not know how I got it, but it is addressed to me. I will leave out what I know I have to leave out, the names. It says, “He's a liar. He's a fake, a phony, a fraud. He told Canadians he was tearing up his costly coalition with [blank], but he is continuing to prop up the Liberal government. Worst of all, he sold out Canadians to get his $2.3-million pension. Canadians can't trust anything he says. It's time for a carbon tax election, full stop. Chip in today to support [I cannot say the name] and the common-sense”, I call it nonsense, “Conservatives as we take on a [I cannot say costly] coalition and win the carbon tax election. [I cannot say the name] has made everything worse. Taxes up. Costs up.” We know the slogan, Madam Speaker. “[Blank] will keep lying to Canadians to keep his pension, but they won't win because we have a secret weapon.” It says me; I am a secret weapon. “We're counting on a strong and patriotic Canadian”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would actually like to ask a question that I am hoping the member will be able to answer, because it is an important one. He mentioned Manitoba pork. I had the opportunity to meet with the executive director of Manitoba Pork just a few weeks ago, Cam Dahl, who told me it has a very serious trade issue. The pork industry in Manitoba is worth about $2 billion in GDP and employs over 20,000 people. He said that the country-of-origin labelling issue in the United States is going to have a deleterious effect on Manitoba pork. I presume that since he has been researching agriculture in Manitoba, he is well aware of the issue.

Can the member inform the House as to what tangible steps he has taken to protect the Manitoba pork industry from the onslaught of country-of-origin labelling in the United States?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I too have met with Cam and many representatives of the pork industry. the industry is alive and well, doing exceptionally well in the province of Manitoba. Over the last number of years, we have seen substantial growth. I think it is somewhere between six million to eight million pigs annually, which is up quite significantly. Are there concerns? Absolutely. It is one of the reasons why, even when we went to Manila, we had representatives from the Canada Pork association.

It is one of the reasons why, when we look at trade with the Philippines and other countries, I have actually made the suggestion that Manitoba Pork should have representation there. It is important to me. It is important to Manitoba. It is important to Canada. With regard to the whole country-of-origin labelling, of course, we are aware of it. It is something we will stay on top of.