SoVote

Jun/3/24 7:25:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the diagnosis is correct. I said as much. It is their solutions that are unappealing and bad. Dentists in Quebec are against their program. They want to provide care. The federal government has no expertise. The system already exists in Quebec. We are saying that if they want there to be dental care, then the money needs to be sent to Quebec. Their diagnosis is good, but their solutions make no sense. My colleague mentioned the vote we just had. There is a coalition of 125 members at the National Assembly who are calling for the money to be sent, who are saying that everyone in Quebec is insured, who are saying that we can improve the program and that we want to do so quickly and better. That is the problem with the NDP: their diagnoses may be correct, but as soon as respecting Quebec's jurisdictions crosses paths with their solutions, they trample all over Quebec and call that a success. If the government of the Netherlands decided to write cheques to Quebec, the people would ask for it. That is not the question. The question is how to offer the services effectively while respecting the Constitution. Obviously, the NDP did not read the Constitution or it pretends not to have read it.

217 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/3/24 7:26:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue of the report is one that I believe we will be debating again soon. The challenge of exorbitant food prices is truly an international challenge. I was reading that in France the finance minister managed to secure—

42 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/3/24 7:26:38 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's phone is vibrating and causing interference.

10 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Jun/3/24 7:26:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-352

Madam Speaker, it was my hand on the desk. I was reading that in France the finance minister managed to secure an agreement from 75 of the top food companies to lower their prices significantly, but here in Canada, the Prime Minister has not even managed to get the big grocery retailers to sign on to a voluntary code of conduct that would not actually lower food prices. Given the fact that the voluntary approach has failed so miserably, does the member not support more proactive measures to ensure that food prices come down? I hear his point around competition. Our leader has tabled Bill C-352, which is now making its way through committee. That process is going to take some time, and Canadians need relief, when it comes to food prices, now. Would the member not support more proactive measures by the government?

145 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Jun/3/24 7:27:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be debating with the NDP today because they are once again proving my point. The member says that in France, the finance minister gathered 75 people in a room to negotiate. There is so little competition here that there were five people in the room. They could have fit in a cubicle here in the back of the lobby. We clearly do not have the same market structure at all. The profit margins are higher here. The land area is bigger and it is less densely populated. We have a fundamental issue with competition. What I was saying to the member earlier is that I think that it is a good idea to think about this, but until we find a way to ensure more competition, more innovation and more supply for consumers, we will go from one temporary measure to the next. There are other anti-competitive behaviours. The grocery stores here are all the same. The service offering is identical almost everywhere, and the supply of products is identical everywhere. I think we need to think outside the box and spend a lot of time on this. The member can count on me to be part of that.

208 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Jun/3/24 7:28:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a curious land Canada is, where a handful of grocery moguls control all the food supply. In 2022, the three most affluent grocers in the land—Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro—reported over $100 billion in sales and drew in profits exceeding $3.6 billion. Unfortunately, small operators and local shops find it very hard to get a foothold in this vast land. Financial and logistical constraints make it nearly impossible to open new businesses. In the meanwhile, the grocery store giants, firmly rooted in Canadian customs and traditions, thrive as they operate thousands of stores. We watch with a mixture of amazement and dismay as the growing concentration of this sector makes it even more complicated for new players to enter the arena and grow, rendering competition almost non-existent. Food prices are going through the roof. Of course, fingers point at the rising cost of raw materials, the upheaval caused by the war in Ukraine and supply chain disruptions. That is true. However, the profit margins of these grocery titans keep growing, and the phenomenon is nothing new. It is becoming critical for Canada to find ways to stem the tide of skyrocketing grocery prices. More competition seems essential to make this positive outcome a reality. In June 2023, a Competition Bureau report on the retail grocery sector was made public, revealing the underbelly of the sector. Canada is at a turning point and needs to develop an innovative strategy to encourage the creation of new businesses in the grocery sector in order to diversify the supply for consumers. Some ambitious companies are looking to revolutionize the sector by offering online groceries. It is crucial that the different levels of government work together to encourage these bold initiatives, which are ready to shake up the established order. Ottawa should support the grocery sector by encouraging the growth of independent retailers and welcoming international grocers to the Canadian market. While there are already several renowned independent grocers in Canada capable of standing up to the industry giants, their modest scale prevents them from competing on a national level. It is critically important that Ottawa embrace informed policies that encourage the growth of independent grocers and facilitate the entry of foreign grocers and discount stores. The addition of new competitors and the growth of existing independent retailers will bring in a healthy breath of fresh air, thereby strengthening consumer purchasing power. This healthy rivalry will encourage our retailers to lower their prices, improve the quality of their products and do more to innovate. Ottawa should also consider introducing clear, harmonized requirements for the display of unit price. It is often time consuming to compare prices, even just for a few items at different grocery stores. People need tools to help them compare prices at the grocery store and make informed choices. This information is essential in helping people make wiser, smarter choices and in promoting competition in our industry. To meet these noble objectives, our governments will have to work together to develop and implement accessible, harmonized standards for the display of unit price. When I say “work together”, I mean that we, of course, do not want Ottawa to interfere again. This work needs to be done with other levels of government. Measures must also be taken to limit or even ban property controls in the grocery sector. Such controls restrict the use of real estate by grocery competitors and make opening new grocery stores difficult, if not impossible. They also reduce competition in our communities. Why is competition so important? Basically, competition is a critical economic lever. When the economy becomes more competitive, both businesses and consumers—Canadians and Quebeckers in this case—benefit substantially. Competition encourages companies to innovate, to perfect the products and services they offer and to increase operational efficiency. As a result, consumers benefit from greater choice, higher quality goods and services and inevitably lower prices. Competition is crucial in all industries and sectors of our economy. The reason it is so important here is that the Canadian grocery sector, as has been said before, is concentrated. This can make it much harder for small and medium-sized businesses to really compete with the Canadian grocery giants. It is difficult for new companies to successfully penetrate this market. Without a change in this competitive landscape, Canadians and Quebeckers will not be able to fully enjoy competitive prices and a wide range of products. In its report, the Competition Bureau recommended more competition in Canada's grocery sector. That is the way forward. We need to adopt measures that are going to encourage and support more competition in this sector. Accordingly, we must also avoid simplistic solutions. Through its amendment, the Conservative Party of Canada is trying once again to replay its opposition day. It feels like Groundhog Day. The opposition day motion was defeated just a few hours ago. It does not hold water for all the reasons that were outlined last week during the debate on that ridiculous proposal. On that, I would be pleased to engage with all of my colleagues.

859 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/3/24 7:35:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to know something. Across Canada, we are seeing these grocery chains that often have a monopoly in some towns. The prices are higher. The reality is that people in Canada pay much more than people in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, for the same groceries. Would my colleague not agree that the best way to combat this price gouging is to have a government that requires grocery chains to stop stealing money from people who are buying groceries just to put food on the table? The other option would be to tax excess profits. Which of those two solutions does my colleague think is best?

111 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/3/24 7:37:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am the first to speak out against indecent profits at a time when many people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. However, we need to be careful about using the word “stealing”. We are not talking about stealing. There are some people who willingly spend their savings. Let us be more careful about the words that we choose. That being said, this situation is indeed unacceptable and inappropriate in many regards. I would say that the answer is in my colleague's question. He said that there are large grocery stores that have a monopoly. That is exactly the problem. That is why I want to go back to what I said. We need to support more small and medium-sized independent grocery stores. We also need to support more foreign grocery stores. That is how we create competition. That is also how we get lower overall prices for everyone.

159 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/3/24 7:38:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned that consumers will not be able to enjoy lower prices unless new competitors enter the market. I would like to know why he thinks new entrants are reluctant to invest in Canada. Why is our industry minister always travelling, chasing grocers south of the border? Is that not proof, in and of itself, that there are significant barriers, primarily regulatory ones, that discourage people from investing in Canada?

76 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/3/24 7:38:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, I think the answer was in the question. Of course, as we know, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is promoting it left, right and centre, but it is not working. The same few players in the sector continue to behave like a cartel. I remember hearing the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry say at Thanksgiving that it was thanks to his plan that there were discounts, as if the flyers in the ad-bags did not exist before the plan was announced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and as if inflation would magically disappear and go away because of it. This initiative cannot and should not be promoted simply through some sort of global marketing operation, but rather through policy changes, of course. The government can kiss up to international companies as much as it wants, but if the market is not attractive, no one will ever want to come here.

161 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 7:40:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that we cannot use the word “stealing” but we can use the word “cartel”. A cartel does things that are illegal. It steals money. Would it not be accurate to simply say that we are paying too much and that it amounts to stealing from us?

56 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Jun/3/24 7:40:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful. Of course, the word “cartel” can be used to refer to drug dealers in Mexico, but it can also be used in other contexts. We often use the word “cartel” to describe groups of companies that join together to form a monopoly. It is a perfectly acceptable term used in sociology, economics, political science and other fields. Its use is not limited to criminal organizations.

76 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/3/24 7:41:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a committee report that was instigated by the NDP. This is the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to read the conclusion of the report into the record because it is important that Canadians know what the NDP has been fighting for. It states: Given that the Canadian grocery sector made more than $6 billion in profit in 2023 and that millions of Canadians have reported food insecurity in the last year, the Standing Committee on Finance call on the government to immediately take action by implementing an excess profit tax on large grocery companies that would put money back in the people's pocket with a GST rebate and establish a National School Food Program, and that this motion be reported to the House. The reason the finance committee ultimately adopted that NDP motion and said that it be reported to the House is for the discussions we are having this evening. I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for bringing this forward. The reality is that it is true that Canadians are living with more food insecurity. The last 20 years have been absolutely dismal. As members know, the dismal decade under the former Harper regime was a terrible time for Canadians. We saw Conservatives in an unbelievably bad government. It was a horrible government from a whole range of perspectives. The cost of housing doubled over the course of that dismal decade. The food bank lineups doubled as well. Why did that happen? It happened not only because Conservatives were absolutely terrible administrators but also because they were concerned only with communication and not concerned in any way with actively governing in the interests of Canadians. The Harper regime was terrible in that respect. However, it also gave away the store with the infamous Stephen Harper tax haven treaties. At the end of this period, this dismal decade, the food bank lineups were increasing and the cost of housing doubling. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that the net cost every year in taxpayer dollars of the infamous Harper tax haven treaties was $30 billion. Members should think about that. We were giving away $30 billion to the wealthiest of Canadians, to the largest and most-profitable corporations, so that they could simply take their money offshore to tax havens and never pay a cent in tax. That is tax they should have been paying that would have essentially taken care of all these other issues that I have been talking about, such as the doubling of the food bank lineups and the fact that housing costs doubled. The Harper government built no housing at all. It was just a horrible, terrible time. Then 2015 came along and the Liberals said that they were going to change all that; however, they kept the Harper tax haven treaties and all the sweetheart deals that the Harper government put in place. Nevertheless, with the NDP pushing them, they have done a number of things that certainly make it a better government than what we had in the terrible, horrible 10 years under the Harper regime. Nevertheless, in reality, because they kept the infrastructure of what the Harper government put into place, we see the same results over the last decade. As we know, the food bank lineups have doubled again. They doubled under the Conservatives, and they have now doubled under the Liberals. The cost of housing has doubled again. It doubled under the Conservatives and has doubled under the Liberals. It is no surprise to members that the NDP takes a different approach. We would not be giving $30 billion a year away to tax havens. We would not be saying to the billionaires and the wealthiest corporations that they could do whatever the hell they want, that there would be no issue there as long as they do not bother us, because some of us would get lobbying jobs and everybody will be happy. That is not how it turned out. As members know, housing is now in a crisis. Conservatives bear 50% of the responsibility and the Liberals the other 50%. For the food bank lineups, Conservatives bear 50% of the responsibility and the Liberals bear the other 50%. What we have seen consistently over this terrible 20-year period, as well, is that the lobbyist revolving door has made things difficult for many Canadian families. We see this with the Conservatives, with their campaign manager being a Loblaws lobbyist and the deputy leader being a lobbyist. We have seen this under the Liberals as well. The grocery giants that have been gouging Canadians over the course of this period have gotten off with impunity, with $6 billion of profit in 2023. I will come back, in a moment, to what Canadians' perceptions are of the grocery giants and the impunity that they were equally given by Conservatives and by Liberals. Both sides should take 50% of the burden. One could say that the NDP's initiatives on anti-scab legislation, pharmacare, dental care and housing have helped to address that but not nearly as much as an NDP government would, as we know. If one thinks that 25 NDP MPs, the worker bees of Parliament, the adults in the room, can make such a difference, to actually start to fight for regular people, just imagine what we would do with 200 MPs. My goodness, we would not be giving tens of billions of dollars to billionaires and to wealthy corporations to take offshore. We would be making sure that seniors are living with an adequate income. We would be making sure that affordable housing is built in this country. We would be making sure that health care covers us from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet. We would be investing in post-secondary education, job creation and clean energy. It would be a much better country. For the moment, Canadians gave us 25 members in this Parliament. With that, we have achieved quite a bit, but there is much more to do. The fact that we are seeing these high profits from the grocery giants is one example of that. The member for Burnaby South presented a bill to increase the abilities of the Competition Bureau to actually crack down on food price gouging. This is a substantial and important initiative. The NDP pushed, as well, to get provisions of those Competition Act changes into the fall economic statement. That is the bill that passed Parliament just a few days ago. Canadians can see the NDP making a difference; the Competition Bureau's enhanced abilities will start to push against the grocery giants, the three big chains, which are continuing to gouge Canadians. The reality is that we have to do more. That is why this motion has been brought forward. We talk about implementing an excess profits tax on large grocery companies, as well as the national school food program. Let me start with the excess profits tax. This is not something that is alien to Canada. In fact, during the Second World War, we had to mobilize the entire country to fight hard, to make sure that we were pushing back against Nazism and Fascism. At that time in our history, the government chose to put in place an excess profits tax. It was 75% of excess profits. It made a big difference. It prevented food price gouging and the kinds of gouging we are seeing today. It was an accepted tool that reined in the biggest companies in Canada so that they would not gouge Canadians. We were successful, both in our fight in the Second World War and in using the benefits of the excess profits tax to ensure, coming out of the war, that we were doing what was important so that our quality of life in Canada grew. Of course, as we know, for the history books, that meant the construction of highways and sewage treatment plants, education, educational facilities, hospitals and housing. Three million units of affordable housing were built across the country in just over three years, including our home, which is in New Westminster on Glover Avenue. Comfortable homes were built by Canadian craftsmen because the federal government said that we needed to build affordable housing now for our returning men and women in the service. Our home was built in 1948. The houses on the block were all built at the same time. At that time, we had a government that understood the importance of building affordable housing. Therefore, an excess profits tax is not new or different. It is something that we have used in the past when we have been in crisis. Surely members would agree with me that, when we have seen a doubling under the Conservatives and then a doubling under the Liberals of the price of housing and food bank lineups, it takes bold solutions. An excess profits tax is one way of achieving that and ensuring that the grocery barons are actually reined in. Let us take the second part of the motion: establishing a national school food program. This is something the NDP has pushed for and is in the budget. I regret to say that the Conservatives offer pretensions in talking about affordability. The member from Carleton cries crocodile tears and says that, even though Conservatives are 50% responsible for the fact that housing prices and food bank lineups have doubled and doubled again, they truly feel that Canadians are facing an affordability crunch. He says that they are having difficulty putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head. The NDP pushed for the school food program to ensure that all students in this country have something to eat at school. Students need to have food to learn. What did the Conservatives do? After all the havoc that they have wreaked, being half responsible for the results for Canadians and the affordability crisis today, the member for Carleton voted against the school lunch program. Back in December, we saw the Conservatives vote to gut everything, from school lunches to affordable housing; transportation safety; food inspection, so we would actually have food that is edible; health care; the RCMP; national defence; and so on. They voted for 120 cuts. Conservatives, with the member for Carleton leading the charge, wanted to axe and cut all services in this country. They wanted to cut back down to nothing, leaving a stump of a federal government. They would have all the money going to billionaires and big corporations, because that is the Conservative way. Not only did Conservatives want to cut any attempt to deal with the national school food program back in December, but every Conservative member recently voted to gut the school food program. There is no dissent allowed in the Conservative caucus under the member for Carleton. Conservatives have to follow the line, whether that means gutting women's rights to reproductive freedom and abortion or whether it means voting against Ukraine, as we saw in the Ukraine trade deals. We expect the member for Carleton to understand the importance of school lunches. However, no, the Conservatives voted unanimously to try to end school lunches for students who are hungry. That is unbelievable to me. They could redeem themselves in the next few days when we vote on this motion by actually voting for a national school food program, having voted against it so many times. The big three chains are Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro. We have seen so many examples of how they have been trying to gouge Canadians. Most recently, we were involved in this. The NDP have been fighting back and pushing out. Many consumers across the country are speaking out as well. Loblaws wanted to increase the prices on expiring food. Members will recall there was a 50% discount when the food is expiring. It is barely edible, but it was subject to a 50% discount. Loblaws, with its massive profits and its massive executive bonuses, decided that they were going to raise the cost of that expiring food. There was a backlash such as we had never seen; finally, Loblaws backed off. However, the reality is that when Canadians were polled, right across the country, just a few weeks ago, and were asked if inflationary pressure was an excuse to price gouge, 83% of Canadians said that, yes, the grocery giants are using inflation and are using the cover that is provided by the Conservative opposition and its closeness to all the lobbyists. We certainly see that, with the deputy leader and campaign manager all embroiled with lobbyists for the big grocery chains. The Conservatives have not said a single word, ever, about food price gouging by the big grocery giants. They have not said a single word in this House about it. Not a single Conservative has stood up to say that maybe the grocery giants should not be gouging the public. Canadians were also polled with respect to what is the major impetus behind the rise in food prices. According to Canadians, the major impetus is food price gouging, and Canadians see it. They see that what is happening in the grocery chains is the lobbyists. The corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals are allowing the grocery giants to gouge Canadians with impunity. The fact that this was identified as the major factor for the rise in food prices should give everyone pause. Certainly, in the next election campaign, whenever that is, Conservative MPs and Liberal MPs will have to defend against why they did not take action to fight back against food price gouging. We know that grocery prices are higher in Canada than elsewhere. We know that the grocery chains and their concentration have led to abuses, and food price gouging is an abuse. From the NDP's standpoint, we need to do start using the tools that have worked in the past. An excess profits tax would push the CEOs because then they actually have a business decision to make. There are actually consequences for food price gouging. They end up having to pay a price, and that price would be the excess profits tax that would be returned to Canadians in the form of the GST rebate. The member for Burnaby South and the NDP members in the House, including the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, have pushed the government to include increased GST rebates and the grocery rebates so that Canadians have more money to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their heads. That is vitally important. The excess profits tax would serve to ensure that there is an enhanced GST rebate for 11 million poor Canadians. At the same time, putting in place the national school lunch program would ensure that all kids in this country, regardless of their backgrounds, regardless of their family situation or regardless of how poor their family is, get food at school so that they can have the food they need to fuel their brains and to learn. That is a win-win-win. It is a good-sense approach by the NDP. We take a different approach than the Conservatives and the Liberals. We have seen, over the last 20 years, what the Conservatives' approach did. It was terrible and lamentable. The Harper regime was the worst government in our entire history. It was mean-spirited, punching down on Canadians, forcing seniors to work longer, cutting veterans' benefits and services, and destroying affordable housing. It was a terrible, dismal government. The Harper government was just a terrible, horrible, no-good government. Unfortunately, the Liberals seem to have taken too much of their inspiration from the Harper government and have not done the things that need to happen, for example, cutting back on the massive money that is poured into overseas tax havens, into oil and gas CEOs, into the banks and into TMX. We believe, in this corner of the House, that supports should go to regular Canadians, and that is why we are here fighting in the House for Canadians.

2713 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/3/24 8:01:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He chose, in the debate, as an opposition member, or a purported opposition member, to spend virtually the entire speech criticizing a government in power from 2006 to 2015, and attacking the current Conservative leader and the current Conservative Party. I remember, before the 2021 election, the member and I were the vice-chairs of the finance committee. We worked together, along with the Bloc vice-chair, and we held the government to account at that committee. We controlled the agenda, co-operated, aligned on some issues and found ways to hold the government to account, as a good opposition party should. What happened to that guy?

116 words

Speech

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 8:02:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of time for my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, but it is obvious he only listened to half the speech. The other half of the speech, I was deploring the fact that the Liberals continued all the policies that the Harper government developed. That is what we should have been fighting over the years. This includes the massive amounts of overseas tax havens and tax loopholes that were put in place by the Harper government, which were continued by the Liberals. I would return the question back to the member. If he understood the Harper policies were wrong, if he was willing to fight with me, as we did fight together, to try to change those policies put in place by the Harper government, which have been continued by the Liberals, why is he not still questioning today those bad decisions made by the Harper government? It seems to me the member knows it was bad. There is $30 billion a year that is still hemorrhaging from our resources, and it is going offshore each and every year. That has not changed. If anything, it has increased. The member understood that was the wrong thing to do when the Harper government brought it in. He was willing to fight with me to try to change the policies of the Liberal government. Today, he seems to think what the Harper government did was okay. He knows, and I know what the Harper government did was wrong, and it is wrong for the Liberal government to copy what Harper did because the result is a negative impact on Canadians.

273 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 8:04:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to grocery prices and the anti-competitive nature of what is going on in Canada, I specifically look to the largest grocery retailers we have here. There are only about three of them. The largest one, Loblaw, and its affiliate stores, control about 42% of the retail grocery market in Canada. Loblaw controls 42%. In comparison, the largest grocery retailer in the United States controls about 11%. If we have so few companies that have so much of the control and power, I think it is just in the natural competitive nature to see those prices increase. Effectively, we have an oligopoly. Can the House leader of the NDP provide his insight into the best ways to try to discourage that? I realize this has an excess profit tax. I have an issue with that. I am more than willing to talk about it and listen to ideas because I have spoken in favour of the concept before. How do we prevent that tax from just being passed on to the consumer? If we are dealing with an oligopoly that only has three or four main competitors, and it has a tax imposed upon it, it would be really easy just to pass that tax along. I am not against it, but I am curious what the member's thoughts are on how we would deal with that.

233 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 8:05:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We do have a massive concentration of grocery chains in this country, and the response from the Liberal government has been to just ask them politely to stop gouging Canadian consumers. That is absolutely unacceptable and one of the reasons why I am so critical of the Liberal government in this regard. The minister of industry asked them politely, and it did not change anything at all. What it takes is action. Other countries have taken action by having an excess profits tax and by having an enhancement for competition, just as the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, has brought forward for the Competition Act, so that the Competition Bureau can actually take action against the rise in prices that are simultaneous and, obviously, in a very real sense, price-fixing. We saw this when it came to the great bread price-fixing saga. This happened under the Conservatives, and they did not take any action at all. The Liberals finally did. I will give them some credit for that, but the reality is that the cost of what was gouged, or stolen, was an average of $400 from every Canadian family. My colleague from the Bloc said we cannot say “steal”, but the price-fixing majors, the grocery giants, stole an average of $400 from every Canadian family. That was price-fixing. They raised the price of bread and they stole $400 from every Canadian family over the course of a number of years. That is theft. What it takes is a government that is willing to stand up to the grocery chains, willing to legislate against them and willing to implement those tools, including an excess profits tax and enhanced consumer protection legislation, and then basically telling the CEOs that unless they stop gouging people, the government will take action, as it has all these tools in place. We know that did not happen under the Conservatives. It has happened very rarely under the Liberals. What it will take is an NDP government that actually stands up for working people. We are prepared to do just that.

362 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/3/24 8:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was just reading that in France, the government was able to force the 75 largest food companies to substantially drop their prices in the face of an unaffordability crisis like the one that we are facing here in Canada. However, what we have seen here is the government really going, cap in hand, to the big grocery chains and asking them, not even to reduce their prices, but just to stabilize them, which, frankly, the CEOs of these big corporations have laughed at. They have not lowered their prices. They have not even stabilized them. We still see food price inflation going up, and we see the cumulative effect of the inflation from the past number of years really hurting Canadians in their pocketbook. What does it say about the government that it is not able to force these companies to drop their prices?

147 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 8:09:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to give a shout-out to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is one of the strongest members of Parliament in this Parliament in speaking up for his constituents. Not a day goes by without him speaking very eloquently and effectively about his constituents in Skeena—Bulkley Valley on a whole range of issues, whether we are talking about transportation, affordability or health care. He is always front and centre in pushing for his constituents to get the service and respect they deserve. This is another example of that. The member is absolutely right that asking politely the banks, the grocery giants or the oil and gas giants does not get them to stop gouging people, such as with gas price gouging. We saw a 30¢-a-litre rise over the last few months that has not been explained. It was not because there were any other changes; it was just because the oil and gas companies can do that as people drive around B.C. There has been food price gouging, as well as higher bank charges, all of those things. We need a government that does not just ask politely, but actually takes action. An NDP government would do that. We would take action against those corporate giants that simply want to gouge consumers with impunity.

226 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/3/24 8:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks the answer is an NDP government, why does he not stop propping up the government and have an election? We could have it out.

30 words

Election

SoVote

House Hansard - 323