:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
I will start with a few reminders: Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday November 2, 2023, the committee resumes its study of Issues Relating to the Horticultural Sector.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses who will be here with us for the first hour. With us today is the Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec, Ms. Stéphanie Forcier, acting executive director, who is joining us by videoconference.
Welcome, Ms. Forcier.
[English]
We also have, from the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, George Gilvesy, president, and Mr. Richard Lee, executive director. From Rollo Bay Holdings Limited, joining us by video conference is Alvin Keenan, owner-manager, from beautiful Prince Edward Island.
Thanks for joining in as part of the committee proceedings here today.
We're going to allow five minutes for opening remarks from each witness and each organization, and then we'll turn it over to questions.
Before I go too much further, I was reminded that February 27 is a big day for this committee, not just because we're studying horticulture, which is important, but also because Ms. Rood and Mr. Steinley have birthdays on the 27th.
We won't sing happy birthday because we don't want to proceed with that, and I didn't get you a cake, Lianne, but I'll distribute these cookies around the table. We'll do it that way.
Happy birthday, Lianne. Happy birthday to Warren when he gets here.
Without further delaying proceedings, let me turn it over to our witnesses.
[Translation]
Ms. Forcier, you have five minutes.
:
Judging by what I am seeing, I should have gone to Ottawa in person to enjoy some cookies. Happy birthday.
Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today as the acting executive director of the Association des producteurs de fraises et de framboises du Québec.
The Association represents close to 350 businesses of all sizes in every region of the province. In 2021, the value of the sector was estimated at more than $85 million.
Quebec is the leading producer of strawberries in the country and the third-largest producer of raspberries. Horticulture, and more specifically the strawberry and raspberry industry in Quebec, is a key component of our farming economy and our cultural heritage, even our identity. Strawberries are visceral in Quebec. Our farmers are passionate about and dedicated to providing exceptional quality fruit to our citizens and even beyond our borders, with some now exporting to the United States.
However, despite efforts, passion and innovation, our industry is facing many challenges that are threatening its long-term sustainability. Relying on the resilience of the farmers has gone on long enough.
First, I would like to note the importance of supporting our businesses in the face of increasing climate challenges. Extreme weather variations, sudden temperature changes and unpredictable weather phenomena have had a major impact on our crops. The 2023 season is going to leave a scar: frost, drought and excessive rain, all that in one year. Last season has been described as a disaster many times, and it was. We are therefore calling for meaningful measures to help farmers adapt to these changing conditions by improving risk management programs.
Crop insurance is a perfect example. In 2023, two out of three farmers did not sign up for crop insurance. In July, we applied for the AgriRecovery process. Here we are on February 27, and, unfortunately, I have yet to see the result of any analysis of our file. Exceptional situations call for exceptional means, but it is clear that there is no safety net.
My colleagues from the Quebec Produce Growers Association, whom you received on February 15, spoke to you about the need for an “agri-disaster” program. Allow me to reiterate the need for such a program, whatever it may be called. Allow me also to propose adding “agri‑complicated”, as we call it in the business, “agri‑adaptability” and “agri‑fast”. Two years to process an AgriStability file is too long, especially when there is a note at the bottom of the bill that says “payable within 30 days”.
There is talk about climate change adaptation and that adaptation will be done on several fronts, including through financial support for adopting technologies or new growing methods. Take soilless crops, for example, which have become standard for our European counterparts. Investments in our farming infrastructure are needed to secure our food supply. Research development into varieties that are resistant to extreme climate conditions is another component of this adaptation.
Second, I want to address the critical issue of farm labour. Our industry relies heavily on seasonal work, and the recruitment of skilled, reliable labour is a constant struggle. Labour accounts for 52% of our production costs and 80% of labourers are foreign workers. Unfortunately, automation is still progressing too slowly to make up for the labour shortage, hence the need to modernize programs and recognize the value associated with the support and mentoring services offered by our farmers.
I also want to shed light on the importance of promoting environmental sustainability in our industry. Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of environmental issues and farmers are meeting their expectations by adopting sustainable farming practices. However, we need to be consistent with our societal choices, by having the power and will to apply the principle of reciprocity with respect to standards. By standards I also mean social standards.
This brings me to the biggest challenge we are facing right now: the business environment. Recrimination in the old country against farmers is being echoed here since the situation is the same, unfortunately. Before legislating more on the environment, let's make sure that our businesses can evolve in a business environment that is suitable and sustainable.
Reconciling the grocery prices that consumers want to pay with the standards being imposed on our farmers is becoming harder to do and will soon bring our industry to a breaking point. There is tremendous pressure on farmers, who also have to deal with rising input costs and rising interest rates. Profit margins have dropped considerably for farmers as everything goes up. This breaking point will obviously have an adverse effect on our hopes for food security.
In closing, to ensure the future prosperity of the horticulture sector, we must meet today's challenges with determination and a vision. I urge you, as members of the committee, to support our efforts to strengthen our horticulture industry and secure a prosperous future for our strawberry and raspberry farmers in Quebec. In fact, let's change our vocabulary and replace the word “support” with the word “investment”. This is not just about supporting our industry, but also about investing in something fundamental, in other words, feeding ourselves.
Thank you for your attention.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to present to you today on behalf of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers. I am here today with Mr. Richard Lee, our executive director.
OGVG represents over 170 greenhouse vegetable growers across the province, producing over 3,900 acres of tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers. The greenhouse vegetable sector is one of the fastest-growing segments of Canadian agriculture. Our members generate $1.4 billion in farm gate sales as of 2022, a contribution of over 14,000 jobs to the workforce and a consistent track record of growth. The sector is a valuable contributor to the Ontario and Canadian economy, and it is the future of farming in Canada that is capable of yielding over 20 times more than conventional field farming as we manage the evolution of climate change.
With over 81% of our product exported to the United States, we are an export-dependent sector providing fresh, nutritious produce to consumers across North America. Our dependency on export and trade was confirmed during the pandemic that defined the integration of the food system across North America. This dependency correlates to the need for alignment on policies that impact our ability to compete sustainably in the global marketplace while managing the crisis on food costs to the consumer.
Canada’s approach to climate change presents a major challenge to our growers. The escalating price on carbon only works where users can feasibly transition to alternative energy sources. These transitions and timelines face significant barriers with the lack of available technology and the limitations of public infrastructure, primarily in the electrical grid. Canada continues to penalize food producers, while the United States adopts incentivization to achieve its climate change goals through the Inflation Reduction Act and its various programs.
In 2024 our members will pay over $18 million in carbon tax, net of the 80% relief we currently receive. This is scheduled to be over $40 million by 2030 based on current production if the 80% relief is maintained. In summary, over a 10-year period, our members will have paid over $242 million in carbon tax.
Canada is not an island, and we have great concern that policies around carbon and plastics will influence the continued growth and investment in greenhouse production throughout Canada. Greenhouses will continue to be built to satisfy consumers' increasing needs for food security and fresh produce, but the question will be whether that investment takes place in a jurisdiction that penalizes food production or in one that provides incentives. In the interim, however, we would encourage the swift passage by the House of Commons of Bill in its original state.
For years, our members have been consciously looking at improving the packaging options for our products. We have embraced the use of packaging that is recyclable to protect the integrity of our produce, providing food safety and traceability while offering consumers new options on ready-to-eat healthy snack-size produce products.
We have serious concerns, again, about the imposition of plastics rules that ignore many of these positive attributes while also increasing food waste and the potential costs of produce by an estimated 34%—according to Deloitte—and while negatively impacting healthy eating habits. This plastics policy will create two different market requirements for the U.S. and for Canada, which may lead to products being unavailable to Canadian consumers if shippers no longer consider Canada to be a viable market for their products.
In the context of producing food, we would offer this: Does it make sense to institute policies and direct taxes that have the impact of increasing food costs? Everyone needs food, and we again would suggest that incentivizing change may provide a better approach and outcome.
We also have comments on a few other points.
OGVG strongly encourages the swift passage of Bill , which is currently in front of the Senate. Financial security is a critical aspect to supporting farmers, and this bill supports a long-standing gap in the produce sector. In addition, it will provide a corrective action on a long-standing trade irritant with the United States.
OGVG advises that in the context of climate change, Canada should consider a North American perimeter strategy on pests and diseases.
Based on previous outdated pest assessments, the CFIA believes these organisms will not survive our cold winters, but the weather is changing, and so is the availability of hosts in the expansion of greenhouses and indoor agriculture. Our pest risk assessments should be re-evaluated.
As a final comment, Mr. Chair, greenhouse producers do not have access to production insurance, and our current safety nets are not representative of controlled environment agriculture. In addition, our experience with AgriRecovery has been dismal, in spite of multi-million-dollar losses and a great impact on our membership.
Thank you for the opportunity to present today.
:
Thank you for welcoming me to this committee. When I got the first phone call, it was to appear virtually, so here I am today. I'm not prepared in the way that George Gilvesy from the greenhouse committee is, but here in agriculture in Prince Edward Island, I've been involved in the potato industry for my entire life.
Some of the changes from climate change are coming so fast, so offensively and in so many different ways, with pests attacking our crops and weather conditions like warmer falls and tropical storms bringing heavy amounts of rain.
Our crop insurance programs need to be updated so that we can use the technology that we have today. The labour force isn't available to walk the fields and monitor how much we leave. The reason we leave some of these spots in the field is that the crops will not store in storage. We have to opt them out, but unless the measurement is over two acres, those things are a bit harder for us to monitor.
The technology today for drones to measure the fields is available. This tool would work better in precision farming in documenting our inputs, and now we can do this electronically with the GPS on our tractors, but now this technology is overloading the cell towers, so the communication can't go from the tractor to the cell tower to the satellite, and therefore the machines sit in the field. As we have more people with cellphones, all of this technology is almost inadequate and makes it so it is not dependable.
It sounds like I'm giving you a list of things that are wrong and complaining about our industry, but my purpose here today is to help you be aware of how we need to make this technology dependable.
I guess I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
The work that living labs is doing all comes from input from the producers themselves, as we work with different cover crops to help prevent wind erosion in the wintertime and also controlling our fertilizer inputs to have them be more accurate. There are all kinds of little jingles here, but it's the right product at the right place at the right the time and at the proper amount. They've talked about that with the four Rs. It goes from there on through to different trials on different varieties of our crops.
Mostly I'm talking about the main cash crop here, which is potatoes. Prince Edward Island doesn't grow all the potatoes in the world, but we think we grow some of the best. In doing that, to control the nitrate levels, we use fertilizers with a coating on them. It makes the nitrogen release slower, and then the plants are able to take up more of it and less fertilizer is left to seep into the groundwater and what have you. That's a major issue.
Also, there's the rotation of different varieties. As we do this, we're doing it with tight calculations for precision.
I want to elaborate a little bit on this. We're able to do this now with satellites on our tractors. It's important for us that this technology be dependable, because if they lose their contact in the fields, the machines sit still sometimes for 20 minutes, half an hour or even sometimes for half a day before the signals come back. You can see that this type of thing really affects the gathering of all this information.
:
As we watch the world news today, there are some very horrific events going on. They can use drones for defence, but also in measurement with the technology here.
We're fortunate to have the Climate Lab on Prince Edward Island. They have shown us where they've flown a drone over some of the fields after the crop insurance.... Crop insurance is provincial. It's a program that's shared between the feds, the farmers and the province, but it is administered by the province.
Anyway, they've flown the drones over the field and found great differences between what they're able to measure versus people walking the fields. When people walk the fields, they have a minimum of a two-acre size that they can measure, if you're leaving some for wet spots or heavy rain. When we measured with a drone, we found—we can verify the numbers—a massive difference of what crop is left.
Once you have these things that are not calculated properly, the yields and measurements of different varieties get skewed. Therefore, the yield didn't come in the storage or in the bin, where the exact amount, right to the pound, can be packaged and measured at the end. If it's left in the field, you don't know whether it's 2%, 5% or 14%. Those things are devastating. Plus, the producers themselves can't take advantage of the program that's available.
Those are some of the reasons that the uptake on crop insurance is not what it needs to be to help give stability to agriculture.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of our witnesses.
Mr. Lee and Mr. Gilvesy, I'll start with you.
On the plastics issue, I am very sympathetic to what your industry is going through, but I want to offer a bit of a counterpoint to Ms. Rood's intervention.
Number one, we have seen in news reports recently that the plastics industry has blatantly lied about the economic viability of recycling their products. That comes from the fact that plastics are found in thousands of different forms, with different chemical compositions. They can't be mixed together, which adds to the struggle of recycling.
I also need to bring the perspective of a coastal community. We get a lot of our food from the ocean. In the ocean, of course, we have a problem with microplastics and bioaccumulation in the fish we eat. This will, of course, make its way into humans.
This is the conundrum we find ourselves in as policy-makers. We obviously want to recognize the struggles of your industry, but we also want to confront the fact that the plastics industry has lied to policy-makers. There's the problem of bioaccumulation in our oceans.
In terms of recommendations, do you have any ideas on how the federal government could tackle the plastics industry to make it easier for that recycling to happen, so your industry and consumers are not confronting this problem and we put ownership back where it should belong? Do you have any suggestions in that regard?
:
Thank you for your question.
There are a lot of different variables we deal with in extreme weather. In the event of the hurricanes that flattened all the woodland and that type of thing, it makes me wonder where the next growth is going to be and whether there will be any kind of a wood industry left in a number of years.
Going back in history in other provinces, in the 1800s the Miramachi in New Brunswick had a great fire. Since that time it's grown up again, and they have a lumber industry.
What we require is the availability of people and youth. We have trade barriers between our provinces in all respects, including for something as simple as not being able to bring beer from one province to another. Red Seal mechanics, nurses and members of all professions cannot go from one province to another to supply the same service without going through a tremendous amount of retraining. It makes me wonder what we've done. I think we've done things to protect ourselves, and now it's time to take a look at how to keep ourselves from—and I don't want to say this—starving to death. That sounds pretty cruel, but everything to do with protectionism needs to be looked at.
Really, it goes back to cleaning up this land that's been devastated. First of all, we were very fortunate last summer that we had all the rain we did, because with all those trees lying down, we didn't have massive forest fires. If that continues, in another year or so it won't be nearly as dangerous for fire because the wood will start to decay. It will be wet and damp and not support flame as well.
Going back, we need to take a look at all policies so that our industries can grow, whether looking at issues of health care and the shortage of nurses or technicians, engineers, and all types of people.
:
Colleagues, welcome back.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 19, 2023, the committee is resuming its study on efforts to stabilize food prices.
[Translation]
I would now like to welcome the hon. François‑Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
Welcome, my friend.
He has brought with him two senior departmental officials.
[English]
Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector, and Étienne-René Massie, assistant deputy minister, small business, tourism and marketplace services.
Colleagues, we'll thank the minister for being able to make some time to come in. This will be the last hour of the study, and then we'll be turning to studying the recommendations that will follow.
Minister, it's great to have you here. You draw a crowd, as you can see. The benches are packed.
Let me recognize some of the folks who are here.
From my province, we have Mr. Perkins. Mr. Williams is from the Belleville area, I believe. From the NDP, we Ms. Idlout from Nunavut. I know, Ms. Idlout, that you'll be sharing your time with Mr. MacGregor in the second or third round.
It's good to see you all here.
Before I go to the minister, I will say that this committee has a great reputation. I'll make sure that we keep that reputation here today because I know he'll want to be able to respond. You guys are going to want to ask really tough questions, but let's keep it inside the bounds of how we play ball at this committee. I know you guys will do me proud on that one.
Minister, I'll pass the floor over to you for five minutes. I'll give you a little bit of freedom.
:
Mr. Chair, on that note, you know, we're all going to be..., but I want to thank colleagues who are here.
[Translation]
Colleagues from both sides of the House, thank you for being here. I think that this is a committee where we can have one of the most important discussions. We know that grocery prices and the cost of living are a day-to-day concern for Canadians.
[English]
I'm really very pleased to be here with colleagues whom I interact with on a daily basis.
Food affordability is a critical issue. It's facing all Canadians. That's why this committee is probably one of the most important in the work because of the work it's doing. Our government, as you've seen, is really committed to stabilizing food prices in Canada. You've seen over the last month and, I would say, the last year that we've been taking decisive action to do so, and we're starting to see results from that.
[Translation]
Last summer our government launched the grocery rebate, which delivered a payment to eligible Canadians, alongside the quarterly GST/HST credit payment. Then, last fall, our government held a series of meetings with the major players in the food supply chain, both grocers and suppliers, to encourage them to take appropriate measures to stabilize grocery prices in Canada. I was told that this was one of the first times that the CEOs of the five major grocery store chains met in Ottawa. On behalf of 40 million Canadians, I expressed our frustration and asked that they take meaningful action to stabilize grocery prices in Canada.
[English]
Indeed, in September of last year, I met with the leaders of Canada's five largest grocery chains to stress the government's expectation that they take action to stabilize food prices in Canada.
Then, in October, you will recall that I announced the tripling of our investment to support consumer advocacy organizations, from $1.6 million to $5 million for the next five years. That was really to create a consumer advocacy culture, I would say. You find it in some parts of the country but not everywhere. I would say that in Quebec that culture is very well ingrained. Monsieur Perron, I'm sure, will be able to talk about that. We need to do that nationally far more to make sure that consumers' interests are well represented.
By providing this additional funding, we are ensuring that consumer interest organizations have the support they need to advocate for consumers and address pressing issues like shrinkflation, which, as you know, Professor Charlebois addressed in this committee. Shrinkflation and dequaliflation are big issues facing consumers.
A few weeks later, in November of last year, we launched the food price data hub to improve the availability and accessibility of data on food prices. That's something we've heard from a number of constituents in the supply chain. You want to establish better leverage between different market participants, and access to information is key to that. The food price data hub provides Canadians with more detailed information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.
[Translation]
As part of our efforts to stabilize grocery prices, we are taking into account the pivotal role that the provinces and territories play, and we understand the need for greater co-operation between Ottawa and our provincial and territorial counterparts. I know that you've had the opportunity to hear from many stakeholders in this sector.
That's why, in December 2023, my colleague, , and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss the next steps in stabilizing food prices across the country. I want to recognize the work of those counterparts. There is a lot to do. For example, unit price is a measure that exists only in Quebec. What can we do to make that a national thing?
We spoke about several large initiatives during that important meeting. I was told that the last meeting took place around 2017. You see how important it is to hold these kinds of meetings. It is not very often that we have big meetings like this that bring together our provincial and territorial partners. I think that this is the right thing to do to work together.
[English]
As you're well aware, federal, provincial and territorial governments have been hard at work with industry partners on the grocery code of conduct. This is a substantial measure that will bring fairness, transparency and stability to our grocery sector and supply chain.
[Translation]
That being said, following three years of negotiations and missed deadlines, we are extremely disappointed that some supply chain partners, including two of the five major retailers, have still not signed on to the grocery code of conduct. That is why the government is currently having a hard look at all the options, including legislative options, to ensure fair and transparent practices in the grocery industry.
[English]
Let me be clear. There will be a grocery code of conduct in Canada, one way or the other. I think those who are listening—I'm sure that there are a few folks listening today—should take these words very seriously. We demand action. We judge the action taken, and then there are consequences.
You saw that when we amended the Competition Act. We are looking at all of the tools in the tool box to make sure that we have a code of conduct.
[Translation]
We also recognize that maintaining and enhancing healthy competition in the grocery sector is paramount to stabilizing food prices.
[English]
This is why our government introduced and passed , the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. Among other things, this new law provides the Competition Bureau with subpoena powers to conduct effective and complete market studies. I would say, Mr. Chair, that this was demanded by most market actors. It was unthinkable that in 2024 our main enforcement agency would not have subpoena power, so we fixed that.
We also removed the so-called efficiencies defence to ensure that anti-competitive mergers can now be challenged. It gives the bureau more powers to challenge business practices by large, dominant companies that harm competition and drive up prices.
Mr. Chair, these new powers will not lie dormant. Just last month, I think it was in front of this committee that a representative of the Competition Bureau testified. I also sent a letter to the competition commissioner commending the work done by the bureau in its 2023 retail grocery study report. That report clearly identified important barriers to competition and made helpful recommendations to address this issue.
[Translation]
In that letter, I took the opportunity to express how disappointed I was to learn that the Competition Bureau's study did not benefit from the full co-operation of large grocers. I am hopeful that the new powers provided by Bill will be a useful tool for the Competition Bureau in countering potential abuses in the marketplace.
[English]
Additionally, we are committed to further enhancing competition in Canada through targeted reforms in Bill , the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. This comprehensive proposal is designed to encourage more competition in all markets, including in Canada's grocery sector.
I want to take this opportunity in front of colleagues in this committee to once again call on all parliamentarians to support this much-needed reform to support Canadian consumers. One concrete action that every member can take is to vote to make sure that we continue our reform of the Competition Act.
Among other things, the proposed measure will modernize the merger review regime. I would think that all colleagues would agree to that. It would strengthen the enforcement framework with respect to collaborations that harm competition. I could not imagine any member being against that. Also, it would broaden recourse to the Competition Tribunal by private parties, which we have heard about from witnesses.
Mr. Chair, beyond modernizing Canada's competition regime, we of course continue to encourage more choice for Canadian consumers. That's why we are engaging with international grocers that have played a key role in improving affordability in markets around the world. If you have questions, I'll be happy to report on that.
Mr. Chair, in conclusion, let me say this. When it comes to grocery prices in Canada, our government is taking decisive action. We are committed to stabilizing food prices across the country and we will continue to work with all levels of government to make sure Canadian consumers get the much-needed relief they deserve at the checkout counter.
I want to thank all the members of this committee. I know, Mr. Chair, that you sent a letter recently to ask for action. I think everyone on this committee has a role to play to make sure we work for Canadians.
:
Ms. Taylor-Roy, I am very pleased to hear you ask a question in French and to answer in that language.
You're right. The curve shows that inflation is slowing down in the grocery sector. That is a fact and the data comes from Statistics Canada. The measures that we have taken are currently affecting the market, but we need to do more. That is why, when I met with grocers for the first time in September 2023, I asked them to work with us to implement measures. We were guided by what is being done in Canada and abroad. We looked at what is being done in France, England and other countries. We told Canadian grocers that we need them to work with the Government of Canada to help us stabilize food prices in the country.
The major grocery chains that appeared before the committee came back with some ideas. However, I did not think that they were enough and I was not satisfied, so I told them that we were going to change the law to give the Competition Bureau more power so that it could get to the bottom of this issue. That is what we did.
When we meet with Canada's major grocery chains, they tell us that the supply chain is complicated and that there are many factors that affect grocery prices. I told them to put their cards on the table and to tell Canadians if it is complicated and then we can decide what to do about it.
We launched the biggest reform of the Competition Act in the past 40 years. What is more, we made record investments in the Office of Consumer Affairs, which is part of my department. We also held a federal-provincial meeting on consumer challenges. Some people told me that this was the first such meeting since Confederation. I would like to believe them, but there have definitely been other meetings since then. I was told that the last such meeting supposedly took place around 2000, and we are in the process of verifying that.
We put pressure on the industry because we think that everyone has a role to play in this. In light of that, we did not just meet with the major grocery chains. We also met with industry representatives, those who have a role to play, including major domestic and foreign stakeholders in Canada's processing industry. We met with them in Ottawa and asked them to be part of the solution.
More recently, I was in discussions with major grocery chains in the United States to see how their market dynamics work. I learned something that this committee should know. A representative from a large American grocery chain that generates about $100 billion in revenue told me that it tried to enter the Canadian market a few years ago, but that it was unable to find any rental space. The chain was looking for 150 rental spaces in Canada, but it was unable to find them. I answered that we had just changed the law to prohibit the use of restrictive clauses in leases between lessors and lessees that prevent competitors from setting up shop near a large grocery chain. The representative confirmed that that was the reason why the chain was unable to enter the Canadian market. We are talking about a company that generates $100 billion in revenue. The representative said that, now that we had changed the law, the chain would again think about coming to Canada because it thinks that Canada is a lucrative market.
:
Well, I would not say it's failing. Is it a tough fight? Yes. Is it worth the fight? Totally. Canadians depend on that. When I see Canadians across the country, they tap me on the back: Keep up the fight, sir, because you're fighting on behalf of 40 million of us.
Most Canadians don't have access to the CEO of Loblaws or Sobeys or Metro, but I demanded their presence in Ottawa and said that they needed to act and that what they did was not sufficient, so we amended the law. I think they get the point now that we're really serious about that. We're talking to our partners internationally. We're talking to international grocers, or what they call deep discounters. At the end of the day, the best way to offer more choice is to have more competition.
You don't need to take it from me. Just look at the chart. Canadians watching at home will say that this is the reality. Fifty per cent of the market is controlled by three companies. That's the reality. If you add Walmart and Costco, it's 80%. What we need is more competition.
If you're looking at me today, in five months I've taken probably more actions than any government in history, I would say—reforming competition, calling the CEOs, making sure we boost the consumer affairs bureau and putting $5 million toward consumer advocacy groups around the country.
In terms of the wherewithal of consumers, the biggest power, as you know, Mr. MacGregor, is consumers and where we spend our money—
:
I'm very happy to answer that.
By the way, I have met with representatives from Unilever, Lassonde, Nestlé, Lactalis, Smucker's, Kraft...and the list goes on. Definitely, I have met with them. I told them one thing: that we expect them to play a role in stabilizing prices.
I even talked to international colleagues, Mr. Perkins, not just those in Canada. I'm talking to our G7 partners to ask what can we do together to make sure that we have more stability in the prices.
I'm not just looking at the grocers. I understand that. I have spent my life in business, just as you have, sir. I understand that everyone has a role to play. One thing that we have to be clear about is that the grocery retail profit margins have nearly doubled in the last five years.
Mr. Rick Perkins: Well—
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne: If you don't believe the Competition Bureau or Statistics Canada, sir, we have a fundamental problem. It's not me saying that. Look at the chart.
I'll try to invoke some of my friendly Manitoba disposition here, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you very much for being here.
I want to go back in my preamble—which may be a bit longer than that of some of my colleagues—to some statistics we have available to us. I've heard my Conservative colleagues from across the way in this committee and in the House talk a lot about food inflation. I want to draw the committee's attention, if I may, to a couple of statistics.
I know you talked about food prices beginning to stabilize around Thanksgiving. Now, I remember Thanksgiving well, because my birthday is in and around there. That would be October. Now, I'm looking at this graph, which is probably similar to the one you have. This is from Statistics Canada and was provided by the Library of Parliament, and then provided to us by the analysts of this committee. It tells us that in the month of October, grocery prices had stabilized substantially since March, May and July, down to about 6%. Now they're down, from the most recent data we have—January 2024—to 4%, which is essentially on par with the consumer price index.
I also hear my colleagues talk a lot about the carbon price and the concern they have about its contributions to food inflation in Canada.
I think, as you mentioned before, Minister, that we have seen a variety of different factors contributing to the cost of living across the world, whether it was pandemic disruption, supply chain management issues or war between Russia and Ukraine, etc.
I'm going to refer back to a chart that I have referred to on a number of occasions in this committee and in the chamber during debate. This comes from 2023 OECD data showing that Canada is essentially on par with the United States in terms of where its position is in the G7, which is tied for second-lowest in the G7 for food price inflation. How is it, I ask, that in a jurisdiction where there is not a price on pollution, the price of food and the inflation related to the cost of food can be on par with those in a jurisdiction where there is one? I have yet to hear my colleagues answer that question adequately. Perhaps it's because they don't want to believe the data.
I'll turn to you, Minister, for comment on that. However, most importantly, I would hope that you comment on.... You'll probably reiterate things you've said before, but I'd love to hear them again. Why do you believe—and is it in relation to actions the Government of Canada has taken—that food prices are lower, that Canada is on par with the United States and that we are starting to see a turnaround and a higher rate of reduction in food prices than we're seeing among allies across the G7 and around the world?
:
I very much like the question. I think you're right, and I'll also go back to the question before.
Yes, the trend is going in the right direction. Those are the data from Stats Canada. Do we need to do more? Definitely. Are we going to keep fighting? Definitely. Is it easy? No. Is it worth it? Definitely.
It's not only for the Minister of Industry; it's for this committee and all Canadians. Everyone is watching what we're doing.
When I hear the Conservatives criticizing, I almost have in mind, “What did you do during your time?” These are the actions that I have taken in five months: I called the grocery CEOs; I made the most comprehensive reform of competition in Canada's history; we made a record investment in the Office of Consumer Affairs; and we had probably one of the first FPT meetings on consumer affairs. That's why I am saying that when I look at our record, I feel pretty good. Do we need to continue the fight? Definitely.
Are there a number of macro things? I think Mr. Perkins was trying to allude.... I don't know if he was trying to defend some of the profit margins, which would be concerning to most Canadians, but what I am saying is that we understand that it's a complex supply chain. What I am saying is that there is also data that we've seen of a profit margin increase.
There are a lot of macro issues that are going on: the war in Ukraine, coming out of COVID, supply chain issues, droughts in some places where we're growing and animal diseases. We understand that, but my point is that when I talked to the CEOS of the groceries, they said that it's complex. I said, “Let's put the cards on the table.”
To the question from before, are we putting pressure on international food processors? Definitely. Are we pushing them? Definitely. Are we talking to our allies to put the pressure on? Definitely. Is that easy? No. Are we going to continue the fight? Yes.
I think that's what Canadians expect, and they expect us to look at all the tools in the tool box, but I would say that the most important one is the reform of competition. If our Conservative colleagues want to help Canadians, they should vote for the bill that would implement the last fall economic statement, because you have additional measures to make sure that we give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate the issues they see.
I don't think the best way is to defend the profit margin of large international grocers. I don't know where our Conservative colleague was going with that. I don't think he would find a lot of Canadians very sympathetic to that.
We're fighting for average Canadians who are finding that it's very tough every week when they have to go to the grocery store. They say, “Keep up the fight, sir. We're going to be with you.” I think this is our duty as elected officials, not just as a minister. We know that when we talk to Canadians, it's about affordability, it's about groceries, it's about housing and it's about opportunities.
I wish that what could come out of this committee, Mr. Chair, is that Canadians watching at home—and I'm sure there are many watching—will say, “These people get it. They're working together.”
My plea to colleagues on the Conservative side is to join the fight and be with us to fight for consumers. Don't start trying to defend the profit margin of large international processors. I'm not sure that's a winning argument.
The key message is that we have your back. Canadians have seen that during the pandemic. Is that easy? No. Are the questions that were asked complex? Yes. Is it worth the fight? Definitely.
We know that grocery prices are one of the main concerns for Canadians on a weekly basis. We have taken more action, I would say, in the last six months than any government has. Sometimes when I hear the opposition questioning what I've done in six months, it's probably more than what has been done in 10 or 20 years in terms of reforming competition, making sure that we have a strong consumer affairs office, strengthening the enforcement tools of the Competition Bureau, calling on the CEOs to take action, and making sure that we have federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues all working in the same direction. It's almost unprecedented in our nation's history to see so much being done to tackle one specific issue for Canadians.
I would also say to my colleagues in the opposition that we are all here to serve Canadians. This is not a partisan issue. Food pricing is not a partisan issue. Competition is not a partisan issue. Offering more tools to consumers is not a partisan issue. I would really hope that what Canadians take out of this meeting, Mr. Chair, is that everyone recommits to work for them.
Families are faced with high food prices across the country. There's no magic solution. It's not like I could flip a switch that would immediately provide relief; however, it's trending in the right direction.
Do we need to do more? Definitely, and I appeal to the best judgment of all my colleagues in the House. to pass to Bill , for example, and give more power to the Competition Bureau. I hope that Canadians will see that all of us who have been sent to Ottawa are fighting for them every single day. That's what they expect from us.
We want to be fair. We want to be constructive. We want more choice, more competition and better prices for Canadians. That's what I commit to do. That's what I will continue to do with your support, Mr. Chair.