SoVote

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

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal

Jun/4/24 1:05:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government has invested and increased the budget by over $150 million to help northerners. Our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that 100% of the retail subsidy is directly passed on to northerners. Prices are too high in the north. We have worked, and will continue to work, with territorial governments, indigenous partners and people who live in the north and the Arctic to make more progress. Progress has been made, but there is a lot more work to be done. We are committed to doing it.

90 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Jun/4/24 1:06:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member was just talking about some $100 million that was put into a fund. This morning the Auditor General, in a report, talked about the misuse of funds in the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund, saying that it is almost a slush fund. This is given that $123 million worth of contracts were found to have been given inappropriately, with $59 million of those being given to projects that never should have been awarded any money in the first place. The member is talking about the appropriation of those funds for a good purpose, but could he comment on how he thinks the funds in the technology process, which the Auditor General just announced today, should have been used?

122 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal

Jun/4/24 1:07:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who has been a good friend for many years. In terms of the bills I already mentioned, whether it is Bill C-56 or Bill C-59, we are going to make sure that they bring in legislative measures and give more powers to the bureau and the controllers. In that way, they will be able to control those subsidies, including the one that the hon. member is talking about.

79 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Jun/4/24 1:08:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in its motion, the NDP calls on the government to “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers”. I wonder whether the member knows what the NDP is referring to, because to my knowledge, there are no subsidy programs specifically for grocers. Obviously, there is the nutrition north program, but the NDP is proposing to boost that program's funding, for valid reasons. In my opinion, the true fat cats pocketing federal handouts are the oil companies. Big oil makes billions of dollars in profits a year and still receives taxpayer money in the form of government handouts. That is why I am wondering which subsidy program the NDP is referring to. Can the government member tell me if he knows what the NDP is talking about?

132 words

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal

Jun/4/24 1:09:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about subsidies; particularly, the hon. member mentioned the north. When it comes to northern communities, we all know that the prices are high. To help, our government has invested the $150 million I mentioned. Those are the monies that will go to charities, food banks and other northern organizations so that people will be able to benefit; the people of the north will be able to benefit through those subsidies.

75 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Jun/4/24 1:11:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of our NDP motion, which reads: That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys make record profits, the House call on the government to: (a) force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap or other measures; (b) stop delaying long-needed reforms to the Nutrition North program; and (c) stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers. I am in support of this motion, because what Canadians are experiencing across the country, and in particular in my riding of Edmonton Griesbach, is truly heartbreaking. In my time in my community, I often speak to seniors, young people and those who are doing everything right, but they find that they are continuing to fall further behind. We know that the Liberals' consistent delay in action is truly costing Canadians, not just in their ability to feed themselves, but in so many ways, such as their dignity. On the Conservative side, they like to deflect from the point that corporations are gouging Canadians by reducing all of their fears, their woes and the reality of our economy down to slogans. However, this is an immensely serious issue that is facing Canadians, and we must have the courage to call out corporations that continue to put this immense greed ahead of the very basic dignity of all Canadians. One in five Canadians is now skipping a meal. Food banks have never been used at the rate they are being used, in the last 35 years. As a matter of fact, the price of food has now reached over 20% of the cost in the last three years. We must be able to control the immense appetite of these corporations that have largely used the postpandemic period, this crisis that Canadians are facing, for their own particular benefit. We do not have to look all that far in Canada's own history to see that private megacorporations always do the same thing when crisis hits. They jack up the prices. They force those who need those supports most, and they hurt them. They do that because their shareholders are not necessarily concerned about the outcome for regular Canadians. They do not have to ever feel the pain of people who have to look their child in the eye and know that they will not get a meal because they have given it to the child. They will not ever feel the pain of people who have to understand that they have to work an extra four hours and maybe miss the concert that their kids are putting on at school because they need that money to make ends meet. These stakeholders are completely absent of the realities facing so many Canadians, so they continue to jack up the prices, which go higher and higher, so much so that Canadians across the country have now galvanized together to boycott a megacorporation like Loblaws in order to seek their own justice. This is the kind of justice that government should be seeking. This is the kind of justice that these corporations should be subjected to. Not that long ago, there was a terrible instance that found some of these megacorporations guilty of fixing the price of bread. It is shameful that corporations would fix the price of bread in order to make hand-over-fist profits. We need to have a level of accountability for these corporations. In addition to this corporate greed, not only should these companies be held to account, but we also see that consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments continue to allow it, and also reward that level of greed. For example, when the Conservatives were in power, they gave $2.35 billion in corporate handouts to big grocery chains, which is shameful. It gets even worse, because Canadians were promised, in 2015, a systemic change, that justice was going to come to Canada, but what we have seen is more of the same, as the Liberals kept that corporate handout. We do not have to look all that far in our own history. In 2019, for example, we saw a terrible instance where Loblaws needed refrigerators, and guess who paid for it: Canadian taxpayers had to pay for Loblaws' refrigerators. It is shameful. If Canadians had their refrigerators paid for them, imagine that. Imagine that cost alleviated in the household. No, Loblaws got access to a free refrigerator program costing millions of dollars. These corporate handouts continue and continue, and the Conservatives spend all day trying to convince Canadians that they were never part of the problem, that they have not governed the country for half its existence and that for some reason the problems that we see from the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and today were somehow avoidant of their legislation, avoidant of their priorities, avoidant of holding corporations responsible. We often hear from the Conservatives that these nine years have been tough. Yes, they have been tough on Canadians. My God, they have been hard, but it did not just come from nine years. It came from generations of critically underfunding the social safety net that Canadians rely on. The member of Parliament for Nunavut speaks, for example, about the nutrition north program. The nutrition north program is so critical and important, so that we can get a basic level of dignity to those living in the north, but what we see is this complete, abject failure by the government to recognize the humanity of these people: relatives, family members, children, babies. There comes a time when we have to question whether systemic racism and the issues that plague the north are present in this issue, and I would suggest that they are, that Canada's own history of deep colonization has played a role in the direct underfunding of areas that are predominantly indigenous. We know that from the history of the Prairies, and we see that in the nutrition north program. Canadians know that the problem is corporate greed. They know it. I will give an example, and I know the Conservatives will love this one, because I will talk about the carbon tax, their favourite thing to talk about. It is all they talk about all day. In my riding, we have a lot of hard-working individuals, people who own trucks. It takes a lot of money to run a truck. On April 1 of last year, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 3¢. Conservatives say this is bad, but Danielle Smith increased it by 4¢ and that is not even with a rebate. As for the 13¢, though, who is getting the 13¢? I tell those workers that they are getting gouged. They are getting gouged at the pump by those corporations that are making hand-over-fist profits, because, again, their shareholders demand it. They have never filled up their gas tank in their life. They would not even know the number, but Canadians do, because they are pinching every single dollar they have in order to make ends meet. What we have is a government that is so out of touch that it is failing to recognize that corporate greed plays a role in this. Then it has its buddies, the Conservatives, to back it up on that and continue to deflect from the truth. That is why we have not heard whether there will be support for this motion. That is why no one wants to talk about corporate greed in this place. When New Democrats force a discussion, as we are today, it is imperative that we are honest with Canadians about the real cost of living and the crisis that contributes to it. When corporations are allowed to continue and continue to gouge, when they are allowed to just go unfettered by raising prices, like three apples for seven dollars, my God, that is unfair. When they are allowed to do that, with no penalty, they will continue. That is why the bread-fixing scandal of the three major grocery companies is so important for us to focus on as a case study. When they collude together and set the price of bread so that they make maximum profits, and then no one on the Conservative bench mentions that crime and no one on the Liberal side mentions that crime, when is there going to be justice for Canadians? I am proud to vote in favour of this motion, and I hope my colleagues do too.

1444 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 1:20:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, we heard our Conservative friends talk about the carbon tax, manufacturers making obscene profits on the backs of Canadians, and the big grocery chains. If that was the case, if that was the true cause of high food prices, would the grocery chain profits not have been much lower, if in fact their input costs had been jacked up so high? How does the member assess the Conservative message to Canadians on this issue?

78 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Jun/4/24 1:21:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that question from my hon. colleague just speaks to the divide-and-distract position of the Conservatives. They always want to say that it is someone else's problem, that it is always the government that stands as the reason why things are so hard for Canadians, and that the only way to solve it is by electing them. What a convenient solution that is: just elect Conservatives. The truth is, we have done that many times. Canadians have done that so many times, yet we are still in this predicament. Worse yet, we have programs that have largely failed Canadians and cost us billions. We do not have to look too far to remember the Phoenix pay system, one of the most expensive scandals of the Conservative government, which is still impacting regular workers today. When Conservatives tell me the cost of living crisis is just about the carbon tax and could not possibly be about Loblaws, who are they really working for? They are probably working for those corporations that would benefit from the deflection.

179 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/4/24 1:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about government policies and how these policies are not serving the average Canadians. In the meantime, he and his party keep supporting the same government. Canadians are listening and wondering what is going on here. Why would the NDP members blame the government and complain about the government while they keep supporting the same government?

60 words

Supporting

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/4/24 1:23:07 p.m.
Watch

I just hope they get along and talk about the Edmonton Oilers at some point. The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

21 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Jun/4/24 1:23:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start with two things: Go, Oilers, go. I am so proud of our hometown, and we are going to win the Stanley Cup. I will address the member's question in just a moment, but I want to challenge him on his position on Palestine. I know he avoided the vote on a free Palestine. He avoided the vote there, and I hope that he has the courage to stand in support of the constituents, whom we both share, who are calling for justice and a ceasefire. As to the second point, about why we support the confidence and supply agreement with the government, we have set some priorities and we have supplied some confidence. We do not set the implementation, but it is like the old saying about the devil one knows versus the devil one does not know. We know what the government is going to do, and it is going to do it badly, but at least we are there to make sure that it does not go so off track that it hurts Canadians more than it already has. Worse yet, if we do not do this, then guess who is next: the Conservatives, and life is going to get even harder. The hardest choice for New Democrats in this place is to have to do what we always have to do, which is to ensure that good policies come out of this place. To be frank, good policies only ever come out of minority governments that New Democrats stand vanguard to.

260 words

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

Jun/4/24 1:24:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear the eloquence of the member for Edmonton Griesbach. He fights very strongly on behalf of his constituents. I am wondering why he believes Conservatives have never apologized for the 10-year, decade-long bread price-fixing scandal that started right after Harper was elected and continued right through until after the Harper government was thrown out. That took, on average, $400 out of the pockets of Canadian families, with each family paying $400 more than they should have because the Harper government refused to call the corporations that fixed the price of bread to account. Can the member tell me why Conservatives have never apologized, never said they are sorry to Canadians for allowing that egregious theft from so many Canadian families?

130 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Jun/4/24 1:25:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives never apologize for their mistakes. Their consistent message is to say it is someone else's problem. It is at the core of Conservatives to never take accountability for what they have done. Conservatives never take accountability for the fact that they failed Canadians so many times. They never take into account that they have played a role in the economy that so many Canadians are now falling behind in. It always has to be someone else's problem. However, when we catch them red-handed, when we see that during their time in government they allowed big corporations to fix the price of bread, we have to demand accountability. Worse yet, they also paid $2.35 billion in handouts to those same companies, so they are working for them. That is why the Conservatives never apologized. They are the same ones who made the problem.

150 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324