SoVote

Oct/6/22 10:17:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague mentioned, yesterday the agriculture committee, with amendments from the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc, passed his motion. I certainly think that reflects the working spirit of our committee. I do not disagree with the proposition of what the member is putting forward, but when I look at the text of the motion it seems to almost have the conclusion before the investigation has even happened. When he talks about high corporate profits and high food prices, I guess my question for the hon. member is this. Is he asserting that there is absolute price gouging happening in this country, or does he think there are plausible reasons as to why corporate profits and food prices are higher? For example, because many Canadians are buying groceries as opposed to going to restaurants, that could have driven profits higher at the same time as we are facing inflationary pressures. Does he think there is legitimate price gouging happening in this country, or are there plausible reasons as to why those two things could exist at the same time?

183 words

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 10:53:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege for me to rise in the House, and I am pleased to speak to today's NDP motion. This motion was moved by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and he knows how much I respect his work. However, I do want to share some concerns I have regarding the wording of the motion. I think it is important for Canadians following the debate in the House to understand that this opposition motion does not compel the government to take any action. It is simply something for members of the House to reflect on. I am not sure whether today's opposition motion is strictly necessary. Some key elements of the motion were adopted yesterday at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food through Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois amendments. We know that affordability and inflation are very important to Canadians right now. I am not opposed to the idea of looking into food prices in this country. However, I do believe that the text of this motion puts the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. In my view, this motion alleges price-fixing occurs before the committee can do a proper inquiry and before we have the opportunity to hear from industry officials about the possibility we are looking at the unintended consequences of the circumstances. As I mentioned, I do not have a whole lot of contention as I stand before the House today, but the text of the motion is almost suggesting this is a fait accompli and absolutely real, and I think there are important questions that need to be asked. However, I do have some concerns about the fact that the motion is almost saying that this is absolutely happening before we have even had the inquiry at the agriculture and agri-food committee. I know that was expressed yesterday by some of my colleagues who sit on that committee. I also want to take a moment to examine specific provisions of the motion. Under paragraph (b), there is a mention of “an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed”. It goes on to suggest that perhaps there is something that should be done to control the prices, and although I did not have the opportunity to ask this question specifically to my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I want to know whether that is suggesting the government has a role to play in setting prices. This is not something we have seen since, I believe, World War II, when the government did intervene in those circumstances to set maximum price caps. The text of the motion does not come right out and say it, but “an affordable and fair food strategy” could include, I presume, regulatory measures. That would be a question I would have for my hon. colleague. Perhaps, if he has the opportunity today in the House, he could address that, or perhaps some of his NDP colleagues who know could raise the point of whether they see that as a specific measure. Yes, it has been done before, but the government should be very cautious that it is absolutely necessary to completely intervene, to set prices in a market, until such time that we have real evidence that the allegations being put forward in the text of the motion today are absolutely true. Paragraph (c) talks about “greedflation”, and I just want to go on record that this is not what the committee agreed to yesterday. Yes, the key elements of the hon. member's motion were adopted, but there was a desire, particularly from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, to look at the issue. He rightfully pointed out that, before we get to the point of saying this is greed inflation, we should actually call the witnesses to bring forward evidence and hear that before we simply say that it is indeed the case. The committee has agreed to look at inflation in food prices in the entire food retail sector, not just the grocery sector, to be able to ask what questions can be put forward in co-operation with the food retail sector to help support it and avoid large increases in food prices. I am glad the motion mentions the Competition Bureau. I think it is a very important organization that already has the tools needed to study these issues. I have concerns about the capacity of our agriculture committee to be able to get to the bottom of exactly what might be happening. Yes, we can come in and ask questions, but I do not know if there are any forensic accountants who might sit on the agriculture committee. We will ask those questions, but it is ultimately the Competition Bureau that has the tools and expertise to be able to examine whether or not some of the allegations that are being made are indeed happening. It calls into question whether there is anti-competitive behaviour or pricing fixing happening, because the Competition Bureau, as far as I know, has not intervened to date. However, I think it is an important question that all members of this House should reflect on. I think that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford missed an opportunity to raise and mention the importance of the national school food program. We all know that affordability is a top issue right now for many Canadians. This is a program that could make sure we have healthy food in school, ensuring that children who might be living in families who do not have a whole lot of economic means can be supported. It was announced in budget 2021, and I would have liked to see the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford raise it and encourage the government to expedite that allocation of money and work with the provinces and territories to roll it out. The motion also does not call on ways in which the grocery sector itself might be able to help mitigate food prices by implementing a price freeze. I understand it has happened elsewhere and there have been some retail grocers in other jurisdictions around the world that have, by their own will, actually implemented a price freeze. There might be differing opinions on whether or not that is best public policy, but the member failed to mention it in the text of his motion today. I will go on record and say that I have some concern about the way in which the NDP is bringing forward and villainizing corporate leadership. Now, before my friends from the NDP start screaming that I am a friend of big business in Canada and standing up for my corporate friends, it is not that. It is that we want to have a level of decorum in our public policy and in our politics in this country that does not simply make vast statements. I read into the record the other day a Facebook post from the leader of the NDP, which said that CEOs in this country are rigging the system, that they are stealing Canadians' wealth. Boy, what an allegation that is. In making it, he is villainizing an entire group of individuals who serve in corporate leadership in this country. I hope the position of the NDP is not simply that every corporate leader in this country is corrupt, because that does nothing to unify the country. It creates a further divide—

1267 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/6/22 11:02:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can see why the House is filling up. It is because I have the opportunity to have the floor, and people are very interested in what I have to say. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! I really appreciate the opportunity to get to engage with so many of my colleagues, and I look forward to their questions momentarily. However, I think that if NDP members want to put forward more constructive debates in this House, they need to stop villainizing corporate leadership and start putting forward policies. If they want to tax Canadian high-income earners more and put forward other pieces, that is fine and that is their ideological position, but they should stop villainizing individuals who lead corporate entities in this country. It is not helpful, and it is not really going to help us get to a better system and better policies for all Canadians. I will leave it at that, and I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

168 words

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/6/22 11:04:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whether it is the grocery code of conduct that the Minister of Agriculture is working with industry to be able to move forward or whether it is putting excess profit taxes as we have on the banking sector, there are a number of ways in which this government is able to move to make sure there is equity in how we tax Canadians and to ask Canadians who have more means to give a bit more to help support public programs that matter for all. I know my ideological viewpoint may not completely align with that of the member opposite. As I have said in my remarks, I would like us to have an investigation before we simply put forward an assertion that there is complete corporate greed in this country. Let us examine the facts. Let us go before the committee before we simply make those allegations in the House.

153 words

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/6/22 11:05:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the government has done, since day one, when we lowered taxes and allowed Canadians of lower and middle income to keep more of the money they earn, and increased taxes on those who have the most money to give into the system. The member voted against that motion. The member speaks about carbon pricing in this country. It is going to be tripling by 2030, not overnight, and the money actually goes back to Canadians and to businesses, so it is a false narrative that the Conservatives are putting forward. Best of all, they do not have a plan on climate. They do not put forward any meaningful policies to reduce emissions. It is a false narrative, and it is extremely problematic. I look forward to the day when the Conservatives look forward to a pricing system that is market based and can move forward. That is what the former leader of the official opposition did in the last election. I look forward to seeing what the new leader of the official opposition does in the next election.

184 words

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/6/22 11:07:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to read the report the member is referencing, but I will say that the government has invested in CRA resources to be able to tackle offshore accounts and tax evasion. It has brought in nearly $4 billion of additional revenue. I take notice that there is more work that the government can do in that domain, but these are important elements that we have done concretely. Is there more work to be done? Sure, but we also have to balance that against global competitiveness at the same time. Sometimes the policies of the NDP or the Green Party would just lead to more offshoring of taxes. Just to reference the Laffer curve, if their income taxes or corporate taxes are too high, companies will choose to do business or leave their money elsewhere. That is an element we have to be mindful of when we are devising public policy in the House.

160 words

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 1:16:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we look at the text of the motion, I think most members in the House would agree that the conversation around food inflation and pricing is an important one, but it seems to suggest that there is already a predetermined outcome, that grocers and CEOs are absolutely price gouging. When the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford raised his point, I asked him about whether there could be a correlation between the fact that many Canadians would have been buying groceries for home over the last year as opposed to eating at restaurants and that, because of the inflationary pressures we are seeing, prices could have been up, but grocery profits also could have been up because of the changed dynamic of how we were purchasing food and feeding ourselves over the last couple of years. Does the member think there is a plausible rationale for why those two things are happening or is it just her assertion that grocers are absolutely price-fixing the system?

170 words

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 1:51:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier this morning, I have concerns with the way the text of the motion is reading. It is almost like the inquisition has already happened, there is absolutely corporate greed and there is price-fixing in the grocery market here in Canada. I asked a question of some members of the House about whether Canadians were buying more groceries from the grocery market as opposed to going to restaurants. Maybe the high number of pharmaceuticals that were being bought during the pandemic or the fact that some retailers, such as Sobeys, Loblaws and others, were helping administer vaccines could help account for some of the corporate profit and higher prices we have seen. Does my hon. colleague think that this particular question might be a little more nuanced than the NDP is putting in the motion today?

145 words