SoVote

Jun/4/24 12:29:28 p.m.
Watch

Let us have a quick count. We obviously do not have a quorum right now, so I will have to call in the members. And the bells having rung:

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/4/24 12:30:38 p.m.
Watch

We now have quorum. The hon. member for Victoria.

9 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 12:30:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is really clear to me the Conservatives are so afraid to take on corporate greed that they feel they need to use partisan tactics to try to disrupt a clear call to tackle grocery greed and bring down prices for Canadians. That said, the Liberals have also failed on this front. I was about to read a quote from the Prime Minister, who said, “If their plan doesn't provide real relief...then we will take further action, and we are not ruling anything out, including tax measures.” In the past three years, food prices have increased by more than 20%. We need government action to lower the price of essential food. We know it works. We have seen countries like France and Greece take steps to lower the prices of essential foods. In France, the government secured a deal with 75 major companies to lower the price of groceries for 5,000 products. In Greece, the government announced a gross profit cap for key consumer goods and services in the food and health sectors. In Canada, the government keeps thinking that if we ask nicely enough, big grocery store chains are just going to do it on their own. That is not how corporate greed works. It is not a wild idea; price control measures are being used right now in Canada. Many provincial governments impose limits on rent increases. Prices for most forms of energy, although not gas or refined petroleum products, are already regulated in Canada. The government also committed to forcing big telecom companies to reduce their prices by 25% a couple of years ago. We can tackle grocery store prices for Canadians. Canadians deserve a government that tackles corporate greed. Unfortunately, what Canadians have is a government that has failed time and time again. It kept in place the corporate handouts the Conservatives put in place. Billions of dollars in taxpayer money has been handed to the biggest corporations. Today, New Democrats want to lower grocery store prices for Canadians and hold corporations accountable. Will the Liberals and the Conservatives stand with Canadians instead of with the companies that are raking in record profits?

364 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 12:33:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues is that the NDP tends to talk about corporate handouts. The only corporate handout I am aware of was a few years ago, where we provided an incentive, and I believe there were about 45 or 50 applicants, regarding refrigeration. Loblaw was one of the applicants, so we paid up to 25% for it to invest in technological advancements that would reduce emissions. My question for the member is this: Is the NDP suggesting that when a government comes up with a policy to reduce emissions, the private sector should not be allowed to participate in that type of grant?

106 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 12:34:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when the companies are making record profits, yes, the government should be forcing them to make the changes to reduce their emissions without handing over taxpayer money. If we actually put in place strong regulations for the oil and gas sector and the grocery stores, we could change behaviour without needing to hand out big fossil fuel subsidies or big subsidies to grocery store chains. However, I do want to note that when the Conservatives were in power they cut the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%, and the Liberals kept that cut in place. That cost Canadian taxpayers approximately $60 billion in corporate handouts. The Biden administration has proposed increasing the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Can the member see that a corporate tax rate that benefits the biggest grocery stores, that encourages them not to actually pay their fair share, is a handout to the big companies that are making record profits?

161 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/4/24 12:35:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. If all of the corporate profits were eliminated, set at zero voluntarily or by legislation, if the grocery CEOs received zero compensation and both of those factors were removed from the price of food, would the hon. member across the way deem food to be affordable and priced appropriately?

57 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 12:36:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel as if this is the kind of stock definition of a “straw man” argument. No one has said the corporations would maybe be making zero profit. No one has said that the CEOs would be making zero dollars. We are saying that maybe at a time when the biggest corporations are making billions of dollars, when they are raking in record profits and Canadians are going to food banks, just maybe, we deserve a government that will take on corporate greed and lower the prices of everyday essentials for Canadians while they are struggling.

100 words

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

Jun/4/24 12:37:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wish Conservatives had not tried to disrupt my colleague's inspiring speech with all of their procedural tactics, as they have been doing all day. The Conservatives, of course, have the most egregious record. We saw them, under the Harper regime, allow bread price fixing that cost the average family $400. It started right after Harper got elected and continued throughout the Harper regime. Could my colleague tell us why the Conservatives are so afraid of the drive by the NDP to actually end food price gouging? Why are they so concerned when there is a negative impact on the corporate lobbyists who control their party?

109 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 12:37:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is right. We have been seeing procedural tactics being used to try to avoid the conversation about tackling corporate greed. That is because the Conservative Party, its members and half of its national governing body, is made up of lobbyists. We have seen that with some of the people who are at the very top of the organization and who are trying to hide their lobbying efforts. Half of its governing body are very openly lobbyists for big pharma, big grocery stores and big oil and gas. This is who the Conservatives are. This is whose backs they have. They have the backs of the biggest corporations, and it is at the expense of everyday Canadians.

122 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 12:38:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of my constituents in Milton today on the very important issue of grocery prices and all of the affordability challenges that Canadians are facing these days. I would like to start by stating that I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey—Newton. I am happy to respond to some comments made earlier by the hon. Mr. Singh regarding the actions that our government is taking to address food affordability challenges and ensure that all Canadians have access to food and other daily essential goods—

100 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/4/24 12:39:17 p.m.
Watch

Order. I need to remind members about referring to the proper names of members of the Parliament. This is the third time this has happened in a row and it gives an opportunity for the podium to be inserted into the hon. member's desk. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

49 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/4/24 12:39:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I apologize; that was completely unintentional. If you will indulge me, I will start from the top and eliminate the name. I want to thank the page for the podium here and say that I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to comments made earlier by the leader of the New Democratic Party regarding the actions that our government is taking to address the very real food affordability challenges that Canadians are experiencing. That includes my neighbours, friends and family in Milton, Ontario. We have an obligation to ensure that all Canadians have access to food and other daily essential goods. I said yesterday in the House of Commons that it is not as though Canadians can simply buy less food. Food is an essential item and needs to be affordable in our country. Our government has been actively engaged and committed to improving affordability across the board with the view to alleviating the financial stress that is placed on Canadians. While we are doing that, we are addressing the growing costs of essential goods, including groceries. That requires a very strong consumer advocacy sector as well as timely and independent research on consumer issues. That is why our government is targeting enhanced support for Canadian consumers through additional investments in consumer advocacy work. Yesterday I was talking about the value and the potential for more ombudspeople in the grocery sector to do research and conduct a bit of introspection with respect to why grocery prices are so high these days. Everybody seems to have a theory or some kind of an idea as to why grocery prices are inflated, but there are different reasons, and very complex reasons actually, because everything we shop for at the grocery store comes from somewhere else these days. We announced in October 2023 that our government would be tripling our investment in Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's contributions program for non-profit consumer and voluntary organizations. That program's funding was increased to $5 million annually. The additional funds are allowing organizations which advocate directly for the rights of consumers to examine existing and emerging business practices that can be harmful to Canadians, while also recommending actions to improve affordability, increase grocery competition and build on existing government efforts to promote and protect the interests of Canadian consumers. It is absolutely and abundantly clear that grocery chains in Canada have taken advantage of consumers at various times. The very fact that we have an uncompetitive, consumerist and capitalistic approach to selling food, an essential item in this country, raises eyebrows. As somebody who grew up in non-profit housing, I have to wonder whether there is not more space for non-profit groceries. That is not to suggest that we would not support the workers in those stores, and we would certainly continue to support agriculture workers, farmers and food producers. However, there is a lot of value in removing profit from the essentials. As a co-op kid, I never hesitate to talk about the value of non-profits. There is one non-profit organization in my riding about whose incredible work I would like to speak: Food for Life, a local charity and organization, a community-serving group that rescues food. In fact, it purchased a couple of refrigerated trucks with support from the federal government. That means that people from the organization can arrive at a grocery store they have contracts with, and before food comes off the shelf and goes into the landfill, the Food for Life experts go in and remove food from the shelves. Food for Life is supporting the affordability for Canadians on two levels. One, the disposal of food costs grocery stores a lot of money, so they can actually eliminate that cost, which would be passed on to the consumers who shop at the store. Also, the organization is removing high-quality food that will not be sold for one reason or another. I have a lot of feelings about best-before dates. My partner and I often argue about what food has gone bad. I am the type of person who cuts a bit of mould off cheese, grates up the cheese and puts it on my pasta. It does not bother me too much. Perhaps my partner feels a bit differently about cheese mould. Food for Life and the experts there do an amazing job rescuing food, putting it on shelves, packaging it, storing it and freezing it, and they actually have two free grocery stores. It always raises eyebrows when I tell people that my riding, my region, has two free grocery stores. Anybody back home listening can google “Food for Life in Halton”. People can drop by one of their grocery stores. They have excellent variety: fruit, vegetables, meat, bread and all the essentials. All that the experts at Food for Life ask for is just a tiny bit of information, nothing terribly intrusive, just so they can continue to serve our community better. I am proud to say that I am a monthly donor to Food for Life. Anybody who is interested can examine the pathway of food waste and how we can redirect food waste toward people who really need it. I just want to stress that the invaluable, incredible work of Food for Life Canada in Halton is doing just that. Let us go back to some of the projects that our government is funding to further explore barriers to grocery competition in the Canadian context. We have assisted in funding some studies that were completed by the Competition Bureau. It reported that existing barriers in the Canadian grocery sector context include “restrictive covenants” and “property controls”, and retail contracts that limit our control on how real estate is used by competing players in the grocery industry. Our government is committed to reiterating our commitments to enhancing affordability for Canadians, as demonstrated by our investment through budget 2024. We understand the cost pressures that Canadian families are facing, and they often start with the price of food. That is why budget 2024 launched a national school food program in Canada, the first of its kind, and it will help ensure that more than 400,000 children have access to healthy meals and snacks, so they can remain focused on learning and growing while in class. I have visited a lot of amazing school food programs. They basically do boxes where they take snacks out of packaging and create little hampers that go to the classrooms. That is to ensure there is a healthy snack available to any kid who might be a little hungry. There are a lot of reasons a student might be a little hungry, or having a snack attack. It might be because they forgot their lunch at home. It might be because their banana got squished in their bag and they did not want to eat it. It could be because of time poverty; some families just run out of time. Sometimes we forget our lunch. Sometimes it is an affordability challenge and sometimes it is a time poverty issue. Sometimes it is a convenience issue. However, none of those reasons should get in the way of making sure a young kid or student has access to a healthy snack. I want to give Halton Food for Thought a shout-out and Food4Kids Halton, as they are amazing organizations. The volunteers, the teachers and the parents who show up, and everybody who purchases food for or donates food to these programs, are all saints and I just want to say I appreciate them. A national school food program will nationalize that and ensure that it does not always just rely on goodwill, donations and volunteers. We are going to ensure that all schools have access to it. It is definitely the case that schools in higher-income neighbourhoods tend to have more volunteers, and they often have more services. We do not want schools in lower, more modest-income neighbourhoods or communities to not have access to these essential programs. I am really glad that our government is taking the extraordinary step of starting a national school food program. I think 400,000 kids is a lot of kids, and that is a great program and a great way to ensure that young people and students are not going hungry while they are in class. Our government also believes that a lack of competition in Canada's grocery sector means that Canadians will ultimately pay higher prices to feed themselves and their families. We have actually seen that. It was not that long ago that Loblaw Companies sent out, in Ontario at least, those little $25 gift cards to anybody who went online and signed up. That was sort of its sorry for fixing the price of bread for over a decade. There was a big lawsuit and Loblaw basically said, “Sorry, we were fixing the price of bread. We will make amends by sending everybody 25 bucks.” As sort of an act of protest, I spent my $25 at Loblaws. I remember doing that, but I think that did not really make up for the fact that it was working against customers. Where we shop is democratic: With our dollars, we want to support companies that have the best interests of their consumers in mind. I believe in customer service and I also believe that companies have a duty to respect their customers. It would be great to see more of that. Let us go back to some of the significant efforts the Liberals have deployed to ensure that Canada's competition laws are fit for the modern economy. We have also brought forward important amendments to the Competition Act through Bill C-56, and that is the affordable housing and groceries act. These amendments would give further enforcement powers to the Competition Bureau to prevent anti-competitive mergers and to address competition-stifling practices in large dominant players. It is clear when there is not enough competition in a market. If there is only one store in a community, then it can basically charge whatever it wants. Even when there is more than one store, we can see some of the unfair corporate practices that target more vulnerable communities. Oftentimes, there is a smaller store, like a Shoppers Drug Mart or a convenience store, that is within walking distance to affordable housing. However, with some of the bigger stores, the more discount grocery stores, people require a vehicle to get to them. In some of those smaller stores, we will see a higher price for the exact same item. I have seen it myself. A can of tomato soup is $2.49 at Shoppers Drug Mart, but if one goes to a No Frills, and it is on for $1.29. Both stores happen to be owned by the same company, so that is an unfair practice. I am not going to be convinced that the shelf cost of an item in one store versus another is actually double. Finally, our government has made it a priority to maintain something called the food price data hub to give Canadians up-to-date and detailed information on food prices to help them make informed decisions about their grocery options. I am happy to elaborate on the food price data hub in a question.

1915 words

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

Jun/4/24 12:50:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is still not clear to me whether Liberals are going to support the motion. I will review that the motion is composed of three parts. One is to force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap or other measures, for example, an excess profit tax. The second is to stop delaying the long-needed reforms to the nutrition north program. My colleague from Nunavut spoke very eloquently about how money is being poured into nutrition north, but much of that money is going to the CEO's pay and profits rather than reducing the cost of essential foods to northerners. The third is to stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers. This has happened a number of times. Are the Liberals supporting the motion and will they bring an end to the corporate handouts that have been given to companies like Loblaws over the last few years in the amount of over $25 million?

170 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/4/24 12:51:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I support any and all measures to ensure affordability for Canadians, but I also want thoughtful debate in this House about how we should do it. Just saying the federal government should force a company to do something does not indicate how we might get there. We have heard the New Democratic Party say we should force a company to do this, force a company to do that a lot, but there are not a lot of tangible suggestions in terms of what types of incentives, disincentives or methods that our government could possibly use to force a company to do one thing or another. We need to find sustainable, durable solutions, not a one-time tax. That is not a policy change, that is just retribution and punishment. I am frustrated, too. Food costs too much in Canada, but I want a solution that is going to feed into the future and make sure we always have affordable food in Canada. I brought forward ideas like non-profits, food rescue programs, more data and more research. These are all durable solutions to the food insecurity crisis that Canadians are experiencing. These one-time tax ideas of enforcing this and enforcing that are not really great policy.

209 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Jun/4/24 12:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague touched on data, as far as figuring out what Canadians need when it comes to carbon emissions, cost and affordability in Canada. I am wondering why the member and his government are concealing the results of the $8-billion net accelerator fund. I wonder why they are calling it cabinet confidence when all Conservatives are asking about is the target and how much emissions were reduced by that $8-billion slush fund.

79 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/4/24 12:53:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are seeing an attempt by the Conservatives to conflate the affordability crisis with climate action and targets that we are using to lower emissions in Canada. The carbon emissions that are the responsibility of various sectors across the board have all been on the way down, whether it is in the transport sector, the agriculture sector, the grocery sector or the health care sector. These are all large emissions-producing industries, as is the steel industry in my riding. Yes, we invested in the steel industry to ensure that we get coal out of the mix with respect to how we produce steel in this country. We need to build Canada, we need to help the world build up, and that is going to require Canadian ingenuity and innovation.

134 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/4/24 12:54:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to answer the question when my colleague opposite will not let me finish. The truth is we have to invest in Canada to make it cleaner and greener and assist some of the big sectors with those innovations. In the case of Dofasco in Hamilton, when I went to McMaster, I saw the billowing smoke from those coal-fired stacks. In a couple of years, they will be a thing of the past because of our government's investments and interventions. Some of that innovation we should celebrate, not fight over.

97 words

Mr. Dan Mazier

Jun/4/24 12:54:24 p.m.
Watch

How many emissions does that reduce?

6 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 12:54:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-56 Bill C-19

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the NDP motion submitted by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in relation to the price of essential foods and the conduct of grocery giants, such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys. The proposed motion is timely, because by voting in favour of Bill C-59 last week, this House approved the latest initiative in the government's comprehensive modernization of the Competition Act. The relevant clauses were approved unanimously, showing the strong consensus here in this chamber on these issues. The truth of the matter is that the government has been extremely active in promoting competition in all sectors of the economy, including in the grocery retail industry. It begins with resourcing. In budget 2021, the government increased the Competition Bureau's budget by $96 million over five years and $27.5 million ongoing thereafter. The increase in resources was a much needed boost to the bureau's capacity, and in its own words, “These funds enhance our ability to enforce the law and advocate for more competition. They help ensure we have the right tools to deal with Canada’s competition challenges now and in the future.” Needless to say, law enforcement will not be effective if the enforcers are not able to carry out their tasks, and that is why this extraordinary increase was crucial to the bureau's functioning. The next step had to do with the legal framework under which the bureau operates, the Competition Act, which was aging and falling short compared to our international partners. Through the 2022 budget bill, Bill C-19, we took the first step in remedying this, correcting some of the obvious issues. This included criminalizing wage-fixing agreements, allowing private parties to seek an order for abuse of a dominant position and raising maximum penalty amounts to be based on the benefits of anti-competitive conduct. This ensures that sanctions would no longer be a mere slap on the wrist for today's largest economic actors. The government knew, however, that much more remained to be done. Where the solutions were less readily obvious, the minister turned to the public process, launching a comprehensive public consultation on the future of Canada's competition policy. The process ran from November 2022 through March 2023. In response to a consultation paper released by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, over 500 responses were received. This consisted of over 130 from identified stakeholders like academics, businesses, practitioners and non-government organizations. While this feedback was being received, government officials also met with stakeholders in round table groups, allowing them to voice their views and to interact with each other as well. Stakeholders were not shy about sharing their opinions with us. They knew what sorts of outcomes they wanted to be delivered. There was no shortage of proposals made, some highly concrete and detailed, others more directional in nature. What we heard, however, is that Canadians wanted more competition. Across many domains, the desire to strengthen the law, to enable the bureau to act and to align with international counterparts was evident. Of course, many also expressed reservations about ensuring we get the details right and warned about overcorrection. The government took those to heart as well, taking inspiration from examples in other jurisdictions and recognizing the careful balancing that must be done when developing new legislation. All told, the results of the consultation can be seen in two pieces of government legislation. First, Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, was adopted in December 2023. It took some of the largest issues off the table. It eliminated the “efficiency exception”, which allowed anti-competition mergers to withstand challenge. It revised the law on abuse of dominant position to open up new avenues for a remedial order. It broadened the types of collaboration the bureau can examine, including those that are not formed between direct competitors. It established a framework for the bureau to conduct marketing studies, including the possibility of production orders to compel information. Work on this last amendment is already under way, as the bureau has announced an intention to launch a study into the passenger air travel industry. Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, is the second legislative effort following the consultation. As we know, it is currently before the Senate, and the government looks forward to its quick adoption. The amendments to the Competition Act that it contains are incredibly comprehensive. I will provide some of the highlights. The bill makes critical amendments to merger notification and review to ensure that the bureau is aware of the most important deals and would be able to take action before it is too late. It significantly revamps the enforcement framework to strengthen provisions dealing with anti-competitive agreements, and it broadens the private enforcement framework so that more people could bring their own cases before the Competition Tribunal for a wider variety of reasons; in some cases, they could even be eligible for a financial award. Bill C-59 also helps address important government priorities by making it harder to engage in “greenwashing”, which is the questionable or false representation of a product or a business’s environmental benefits. It facilitates useful environmental collaboration that might otherwise have been unlawful. It helps to make repair options more available for consumers by ensuring that refusals to provide the necessary means can be reviewed and remedied as needed. Finally, overall, Bill C-59 makes a number of critical but often technical updates throughout the law to remove enforcement obstacles and make sure that the entire system runs smoothly. I cannot overstate how important these measures are. The competition commissioner has referred to this as a “generational” transformation. It is by far the most significant update to the law since the amendments in 2009, following the recommendations of the competition policy review panel; arguably, it is the most comprehensive rewrite of the Competition Act since it first came into effect in 1986. Our world has changed since then, and it became clear that the law needed to keep pace to enable institutions that can oversee fast-changing markets and landscapes. After the passage of Bill C-59, we can guarantee that our competition law will work for Canadians in markets such as the one under scrutiny here, as well as the many other markets throughout our economy. I am thankful for having been given the opportunity to share a few words.

1099 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/4/24 1:04:46 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I realize that the member did not talk about it in his intervention, but I will ask him about the nutrition north program. Amautiit Nunavut Inuit Women's Association, which I mentioned earlier, reported that the child poverty rate for Nunavut is 35.8%. That is a startling poverty rate in Canada. Another statistic is that the North West Company CEO's salary was $3.91 million. The nutrition north program gave $64 million in tax dollars to the North West Company to alleviate poverty in the north. It is obvious that nutrition north is not working. Does the member agree that the Liberal government needs to stop delaying the reform of nutrition north and that it must act now to help alleviate poverty in Nunavut?

127 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324