SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:08:14 a.m.
Watch

There is still quite a bit of chatting going on by members of the official opposition. I am about to call up one of their members, and I would hope that they are going to be respectful and are not going to be chatting while that is being done, or when others are going to be speaking in the House. Resuming debate, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

68 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

Oct/6/22 11:08:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to talk about food inflation, which is at its highest in 40 years. I will talk about the price increases for a few food items. The price of fish has risen by 10.4%; the price of butter, by 16.9%; the price of eggs, by 10.9%; the price of pasta, by 32%; and the price of coffee, by 14.2%. These are only a few examples of the rising prices Canadians are paying for food. The poorest Canadians are the hardest hit. It is only appropriate that we address this problem. What are the causes of food inflation? The cost of government is increasing the cost of living. The $500-billion inflationary deficit is increasing the cost of the goods we purchase and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes are increasing production costs for our businesses and farmers, which further contributes to the increase in prices. The more the government spends, the more expensive it gets. This is the result of the costly coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The solution is to undo the problems the Liberals have caused. First, we must limit government spending by passing a law that requires politicians to save one dollar for each new dollar spent. This law used to exist elsewhere in the past. In the 1990s, such a law enabled the U.S. government to eliminate its deficit and pay back $400 billion of its debt while creating jobs. After the law was repealed, they started to accumulate deficits once again. This shows that we must impose legal limits on politicians’ spending. Otherwise, they are undisciplined, and consumers pay the price. Second, we must eliminate inflationary taxes. This government, with the support of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, wants to triple the carbon tax on farmers, small businesses and truckers, which will obviously drive up the cost of food. Food does not come from the store, but from farms and farmers. In addition, it is transported by truckers. Every time we increase taxes on these people, consumers pay more. Since farmers can no longer bear the costs, we are importing food from other countries that are creating far more pollution. We would be able to produce the food here, but the taxes on farmers increase costs and make it impossible to produce food in Canada. We should eliminate these taxes to encourage food production here in Canada. We have the best farmers in the world, and we should be able to feed ourselves. Third, we must eliminate the bureaucratic hurdles that prevent the production of food and other essential goods, as well as the red tape and delays that prevent the construction of housing units, energy production and, of course, food production. Instead of printing money like this government and the Bank of Canada are doing, we should be producing what money can buy: more food, more housing units and more energy, here in Canada. That means that we have to eliminate obstacles, make it easier to get a construction permit and allow people who work hard to achieve their goals. Rather than simply printing money, let us produce what we need. This policy will make life more affordable and Canada more self-sufficient. That is the goal we will be pursuing as Conservatives. I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills, Madam Speaker. The New Democrats point out in this motion that corporations should pay what they owe. We agree with that. They say there should be increased penalties for price-fixing. We agree with that, too. They think that the agriculture committee should study high food prices and whether there is something called “greedflation”, including inviting grocery store CEOs to the committee. We agree with that, too. That is all very reasonable. Unfortunately, in some ways, it does not go far enough, because they have a very limited view of greed. They think that it only exists in the private sector. They ignore in the motion government greed. The New Democrats have this fantastical view of human nature. I would not say that it is optimistic or pessimistic; it is both at the same time. They think that human beings are angels when they work for the state, but demons when they work in the private sector, as though greed is part of human nature only in the free market. However, when these same people who work for a company then transfer over to work for a bureaucracy or as politicians, all of a sudden they are purified of all greed and transformed into an entirely different being. The reality is that human nature is what it is, warts and all, good and bad. There is greed and that greed exists in government as well. When the government expands itself vastly faster than the economy, increasing costs by $500 billion in the last two years alone, $200 billion of which had nothing to do whatsoever with COVID, and when the government, against the warnings of the Conservatives, gives corporations wage subsidies, even though they can afford to pay out dividends to their shareholders and bonuses to their executives, the government is engaging in feeding that greed. When the government printed $400 billion, causing inflation to spiral out of control to the benefit of the super-rich, who saw their assets inflate, but to the disadvantage of the poor, who then lost purchasing power and watched house prices go out of reach so they could never get out of their parents' basements or out of that 400-square-foot apartment, it was government greed that had caused that transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have yachts. I just wish once in a while the NDP, which believes in the endless expansion of the state, would acknowledge the roll that government greed has played in plaguing the country with the highest inflation in 40 years. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. Half a trillion dollars in new inflationary spending has bid up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. The inflationary taxes have bid up the cost for businesses and farmers to produce those goods. The more Liberals and New Democrats spend, the more things cost. That is how we got into this mess in the first place. The Liberals and the NDP, the costly coalition, want to double down on the problem by further increasing the costs on the backs of Canadians by tripling the carbon tax, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers. We cannot tax farmers, truckers and grocers without having those costs pass on to the people at the end of the grocery aisle. We know they will pay those higher prices; we know they already have. Conservatives say: enough. The time has come to cap government spending and cut government waste so we can phase out the inflationary deficits and taxes, cancel the plan to triple the carbon tax and, instead, deploy technology to make green alternative energy more affordable. Let us bring down the cost of energy, rather than bring it up. Speaking of which, let us remove the government gatekeepers who make this the 64th-ranked country in the world when it comes to getting a building permit. Sixty-three other countries give them faster. What does that mean? It means that farmers can put up their barns faster. It means that mines, which would produce lithium, cobalt, copper and other minerals for green electricity, must wait longer and, therefore, costs more money. It means that producing clean, green Canadian nuclear energy, etc., could be coming onto the market faster. Let us get these gatekeepers out of the way, speed up the production and unleash the mighty force of our free enterprise system, so instead of creating cash, we create more of what cash buys and unleash the production of a cleaner, more affordable economy for all our hard-working people.

1347 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/6/22 11:19:00 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way did say that he felt this motion did not go far enough, so I assume that means he supports it. I cannot imagine he is against having CEOs pay the money that they owe. He has made it very clear that he is not against having a fair and affordable food strategy. Obviously, his members have already said that they would be supporting the study in agriculture. Does he feel that asking CEOs to pay their fair share is reasonable or does he think that all men should be told that they can go their own way?

104 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Oct/6/22 11:19:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, CEOs should pay their fair share and pay what they owe, as the motion says. We believe in tax enforcement and we believe the government has done a terrible job cracking down on those who hide their money in offshore accounts and refuse to pay what they owe. The Conservatives do support that, to clearly answer the member's question. What we do not support is forcing working-class people to pay higher taxes. We do not support higher energy costs. We do not believe that consumers in Vancouver should pay more than $2.40 a litre. We do not support the plan to triple the carbon tax on home-heating oil for Newfoundlanders and to further drive the people of eastern Canada, 40% of whom are in energy poverty, into more poverty still. We believe that life should be affordable for all of them, and that is why this has not gone far enough.

157 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Oct/6/22 11:20:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this morning, some very disturbing news has been reported, in particular, that misogynistic tags were being used on the Leader of the Opposition's YouTube channel to attract certain individuals to his channel, in particular those who would sympathize with these misogynistic terms. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would like to explain to the House and to Canadians his position on this and perhaps what he will do to ensure this does not continue.

79 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:21:20 a.m.
Watch

I will allow the official opposition leader to respond, however, I do want to remind members to stay relevant to the motion before the House. The leader of the official opposition.

31 words

Remind

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Oct/6/22 11:21:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we on this side reject all misogyny and all acts of extremism, and we will always stand up to that over here. I will give the House an example of why the subject of food affordability is so important, because the people who are the least advantaged in our society end up paying the most. Those with the least means, with the least resources, end up spending a larger share of their income on food. The very wealthy can spend a smaller share of income on food. That is why those people are not as affected by inflation. Two years ago, I warned that we would have an inflation crisis if the government continued with its inflationary taxes and deficits, and that is exactly where we are today. We, as Conservatives, will reverse the policies that got us here, to make the dollar go further for everybody.

149 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Oct/6/22 11:22:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like the House to get down to business, to work like the mature adults we are supposed to be, rather than to repeat slogans and idiocies all day. With respect to the carbon tax, is my colleague aware that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is currently working intelligently to create exemptions where necessary, but that, overall, the carbon tax is necessary? There has to be a price on pollution if we are to take a different path. My colleague mentioned the increase in the price of coffee in his speech as if it were a terrible thing. Is he aware that analysts are predicting that the price of coffee will not only remain high, but that, like chocolate, it will become the luxury product it once was? That is not because of the big bad Liberals, the big bad NDP and others, it is because of global warming. Is he aware of the aphid problems in our crops this year caused by global warming? Can we please get down to business and work on climate change?

190 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Oct/6/22 11:23:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, neither the Bloc Québécois, nor the Liberals, nor the NDP have a plan to deal with climate change. They have a plan to increase taxes. Since the implementation of the carbon tax, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets have never been met. It simply has not worked. The hon. member says there will be exceptions, but when? We introduced bills to exempt farmers years ago, but that never happened. We cannot trust the current government or the costly coalition to make it happen.

89 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Oct/6/22 11:24:30 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8 Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, it a difficult task to follow the leader of the official opposition, but I will do my best to carry on with our message about the NDP opposition day motion, which I also agree does not go far enough. It does not put a lot of the blame on the inflationary crisis we face where most of it belongs, which is on government spending. We cannot say that CEOs, corporate Canada or global companies are driving inflation when we have a federal government that has put in half a trillion dollars in spending, which is having a significant impact on the prices that Canadians are facing all across the board. I find it interesting that we see a bit of schizophrenia with our NDP colleagues, where with every opportunity they have to support increased spending and the tripling of the carbon tax, they vote with the government, yet their motion today attempts to try to make life more affordable for Canadians. In question period yesterday, the leader of the NDP had concerns about rising gas prices, especially in his province of B.C. where fuel has hit $2.40 a litre. That is exactly what Liberal and NDP policy wants to achieve. It wants us to have higher fuel prices. It wants to force us to drive our cars less. I am sure that works in many of my colleagues' urban communities. Some days they can park their cars and take public transit or ride their bikes. My riding is almost 30,000 square kilometres. Public transit does not exist in my riding. My constituents must drive their car. They must drive long distances to work. They must heat their homes and their barns in -40°C weather in January. These are the facts of life. These are the necessities of life. These are not extravagant choices; they have to do that. In response to that, our Liberal colleagues, supported by the NDP, want to triple the carbon tax. I am going to focus a little on the agricultural sector and the impact that is having on rural economies and rural Canadians. I would argue that rural Canadians, especially our farmers, producers and ranchers, pay the carbon tax over and over again. It was interesting to hear my Liberal colleague say that while farmers were price-takers, the carbon tax did not have an impact on the price of food. It is true that they are price-takers. However, when we triple the carbon tax, we triple the price of fuel. We saw the price of fertilizer go up 100% last year. That does not include the 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia and Belarus. That impacts hauling their grain, hauling their cattle and transportation to the terminal. Every single time they are paying that carbon tax over and over again. The company or rail company hauling their grain passes that carbon tax on to the consumer. Every time those prices go up on those transportation or commodity services, it impacts the price of food. That is why we have seen the cost of groceries go up more than 10%, the highest rate of inflation in more than 40 years. Therefore, I understand my NDP colleagues when they say that the CEOs in Canada should pay their fair share. I agree with that. Every Canadian should pay their fair share. The Liberal government has been in power for seven years. If there are loopholes, it should be holding taxpayers accountable for paying their fair share. Obviously, it has not done that. However, to shift the blame from where it lies to other parts of the economy is disingenuous. An interesting statistic came up yesterday at the agriculture committee, and I want to highlight it. We heard it from my Bloc colleague, who I have a lot of respect for as well. Climate change is real, but to put the price of fighting climate change on the backs of Canadian farmers is not fair. Let us be real here, as my colleague was saying. Let us have an honest conversation about this. GHG intensity in agriculture is about 28% globally. What it is in Canada? It is 8%. We are tenfold better than any other country in the world when it comes to GHG emissions and intensity in the agriculture sector in Canada. With respect to the fertilizer issue, the Liberal government wants to see a 30% reduction in fertilizer use. As I said, grocery prices have gone up 10%. If the Liberals follow through with this policy, all I can say to Canadian consumers is “you ain't seen nothing yet”. When farmers have to see their yields go down between 30% and 50%, depending on what the commodity is, that means significantly lower yields and significantly higher grocery prices. That has nothing to do with the CEO of Loblaws. That has exactly to do with government policy put forward by the Liberals. Again, what makes that so frustrating is they are saying to Canadian farmers that they are not part of the solution; they are the problem. Canadian farmers are 50% to 70% more efficient in their fertilizer use than any other country on planet earth. Instead of congratulating them for that and going around the world saying that we are the gold standard and here is where everybody else in the world should go, we are apologizing and dragging our farmers down to where everybody else is. That is the wrong philosophy and certainly the wrong policy. All that is doing is making our farmers worse off. It is also more harmful to the environment, and food prices will go up. It is a triple whammy. Instead of doing the right thing and being a champion and advocate for Canadian farmers, we are going in the exact opposite direction. There are other policies the Liberals have put forward that have made the cost of groceries and the cost of food go up, and I really want to focus on this part. I am going to backtrack a little to the carbon tax again. My colleague from the Bloc brought that up. In the agriculture committee, we are talking about Bill C-234, a private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax on farms. This is a critical piece of legislation that would ensure our farmers are able to remain competitive on the global stage. However, the Liberals are arguing that we do not need Bill C-234 because farmers get a rebate through Bill C-8. We now know from Finance Canada officials that the average farmer will get about $800 back a year through that rebate. We also know that farmers pay close to $50,000 a year on average in carbon tax. I asked a representative from Finance Canada how they could argue that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral when they were admitting that the average farmer is getting about $800 to $860 back. His answer was that if we made it revenue-neutral, urban Canadians would have to subsidize that. Okay. He was telling me that rural Canadians were subsidizing the carbon tax and wealth redistribution for urban Canadians. That is what he was telling me. That is not what the Liberal policy on the carbon tax was. They said it was going to be revenue-neutral and that eight out of 10 families would get more back than they paid. That is baloney. Rural Canadians are suffering and certainly paying significantly more in carbon tax than other Canadians. That is not what the Liberals are selling. Again, it is Liberal policy that is driving inflation and driving up the price of food. It is going to get worse. Although we had a bit of a win this spring when we got the Liberals to back down on front-of-pack labelling on ground beef and pork, they are still going ahead with front-of-pack labelling on most other products. The cost of that is going to be $1.8 billion to the industry. Who do we think pays for that? I can guarantee that Galen Weston at Loblaws is not covering that cost. I can guarantee that French's ketchup is not covering that cost. They are passing that right on to the consumer. Again, a Liberal policy that no one asked for and serves very little purpose is going to be passing on $2 billion in costs to the Canadian consumer for no reason. That is not to mention that the United States has already identified this policy as a trade irritant. Therefore, not only are we upsetting Canadian consumers, but we are also upsetting our number one trading partner, which is looking for every excuse possible to fight back against Canadian trade. In conclusion, I appreciate what my NDP colleague is trying to achieve with this motion, and there are many portions of it that we agree with. Certainly CEOs should pay their fair share and affordable food should be available for every Canadian, but the facts are the facts. Inflation is being driven by ideological, activist policy by the Liberal government. That should be the focus of the House.

1546 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Oct/6/22 11:34:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I share with the member a lot of his concerns about what farmers are dealing with in this day and age and about the inflation that is putting pressure on all Canadians. However, one thing we are asking for in this motion today is to put a tax on the excess profits of big companies. Big companies like Loblaws and Sobeys have made windfall profits while Canadians are suffering. There are also the big oil and gas companies. They talk forever about the carbon tax on the Conservative side, but they never mention the huge profits that oil and gas companies are making, which cause 10 times the increase in gas prices than the carbon tax. I am wondering if he could comment on the comment the CEO of Shell made yesterday. He is saying to please tax Shell; it made too much money. He wants to help Canadians. When will the Conservatives—

156 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:35:33 a.m.
Watch

I will get the hon. member to respond. The hon. member for Foothills.

13 words

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/6/22 11:35:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said, we agree with the portion of the motion about CEOs paying their fair share. As we said, every Canadian should pay their fair share. His colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, in his opening speech asked why the Conservatives are moaning about taxes all the time. Well, what our constituents are telling us every single day is that the tax increases by the Liberal government are punishing. To answer my colleague's question, how is increasing a tax on Loblaws and Sobeys going to reduce food prices? Does he think that by increasing taxes on Galen Weston, he is going to turn around and reduce food prices?

115 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 11:36:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite. We have met, and I know his riding very well. It is a riding in which my Alberta family lives. I have made my career in Hamilton for more than 20 years, and I have heard from the residents of Hamilton Mountain that they are concerned with the cost of living. It is tough to go to the grocery stores today. I am wondering if the member opposite would agree that it is good to have this debate today and it is good the NDP has put forward this motion, because it is a complicated issue. Here we are, and it is important to have this time in the House to debate these issues.

121 words

Mr. John Barlow

Oct/6/22 11:37:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would argue that the Conservatives, especially under the leader of the official opposition, have been talking about affordability every day in this House for the last two weeks. I do appreciate the motion brought forward by the NDP, but it is the Conservative Party that has addressed and highlighted that Liberal policy, Liberal tax hikes and planned new tax hikes are making life unaffordable for Canadians. Grocery prices are up 10%. I did not even talk about interest rates, which have gone up several points and have put thousands of family farms on the brink of possible foreclosure. I cannot imagine what that is doing to many Canadians. I have had constituents in my riding say that interest rates have made their mortgage go up $500 a month. Not many Canadians have the resources to cover that new cost.

142 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:38:11 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Drummond for a brief question.

9 words

Drummond

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/6/22 11:38:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Foothills for his speech. It can be a bit ironic to hear the Conservatives go to bat for regular people and lament the burden they bear as the cost of consumer goods rises across the board. However, when anyone suggests that big corporations, such as web giants, should pay their fair share, the Conservatives waste no time interfering with every process and shooting down everyone's suggestions. I think about tax havens a lot. The Liberal government is under fire, and rightly so, for supporting tax havens and even creating some. However, in 2009, it was the Harper government that legalized 18 new tax havens simply by passing regulations allowing people not to pay taxes on profit generated in tax havens when they bring that money back to Canada. I know the Conservatives really want to fight inflation and bring more money back—

151 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:39:18 a.m.
Watch

The question was supposed to be brief, but the hon. member took a whole minute, and that was all the time that was left. The hon. member for Foothills has the floor, but I see the hon. member for Drummond rising on a point of order.

46 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/6/22 11:39:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I simply want to point out that we made good use of the time allowed during questions and comments. With all due respect, it might be appropriate to respect the time for questions. That would allow all parties to get a turn to speak.

46 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:39:54 a.m.
Watch

I invite the hon. member to have that discussion with his whip. I would simply add that I did mention that it should be a brief question, because there was only one minute left. The hon. member used up almost the whole minute. This means we have no time left, but I will give the hon. member for Foothills the opportunity to answer.

63 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 109