44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 6, 2024 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, today, members of the chamber will have the opportunity, yet again, to advance the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. February 24 will mark two years since Russia's brutal, inhumane and cruel invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainians both at home and across the Canadian diaspora have demonstrated an unwavering and inspiring will to persevere. I have seen this tenacity first-hand in my home riding of Winnipeg South Centre.
Can the Minister of International Trade expand on the critical importance of this legislation, a piece of legislation that President Zelenskyy himself has urged us to enact?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 6:47:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with my colleague, and I have appreciated his collegiality and the degree of collaboration we have been able to find on our shared values. As a relatively new member of Parliament, I always enjoy the opportunity to meet new people from across the country with shared interests.
This is a timely conversation for us to have, because just this morning, part two of this particular conversation continued to unfold at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. There is no question that Canadians are feeling the impact of food prices. It is on their minds. It is something we are aware of, something we are sensitive to and something we are acting on.
It is important, in the context of this conversation, to be mindful of how we have come to this point and what factors are contributing, whether they include the very difficult years of the pandemic and the postpandemic years we are in now; supply chain disruptions that have occurred as a result of conflicts, such as that between Russia and Ukraine happening in Europe at the moment; or various other contributing factors that we are seeing take place around the world. Canada is not immune to these challenges.
There are a few pieces in particular that I would like to highlight, and my colleague raised this a few moments ago, specifically, in relation to a grocery code of conduct. My understanding, having listened intently to the position of the government, my Conservative colleagues, my New Democrat colleagues and my Bloc Québécois colleagues, is this: We all agree that there needs to be a greater degree of transparency in order to deal with the volatility and instability existing in this industry and in the market in order to help Canadians with the increased costs of food.
Canadians want the big grocery chains to be transparent about the prices they are paying for their food. Many departments are involved; many regulations as well. There is no easy, single or universal solution. The food on our plates is tied to several international economic systems. Between the field and the plate, producers, processors and retailers are each dealing with supply problems and market access challenges.
We expect this code to improve interactions between retailers and processors by allowing predictable, transparent and equitable business relations. It is through collaboration between businesses that this code will be more effective, which, ultimately, will be beneficial both to the industry as a whole and to consumers.
One of the disappointing discussions that emerged out of the Standing Committee on Agriculture's study on this particular matter a few weeks ago, when we spoke to executives from Canada's five main grocery chains, was that there is not unanimity. In order for a code of conduct vis-à-vis groceries to be effective, we need to have the buy-in of all those involved. Unfortunately, we have not seen that to date. I note that my colleague from the NDP is right to raise that in the context of this conversation.
I want to speak for a moment about a few of the arguments I hear come from my Conservative colleagues across the way, in particular, in relation to this conversation. Specifically, it is the notion, the insinuation, the argument they make every single day that there is a direct relationship between the increase in the cost of food in Canada and the price on pollution.
We can debunk this in a couple of ways. First, if we look at OECD data from within the last eight months, we can see that Canada is on par with the United States in terms of the cost of food in our country. I have asked this question of my Conservative colleagues before and have yet to get a sufficient answer: How is it that in two jurisdictions, one where there is a price on pollution and another where there is not, the food prices are essentially the same?
In addition to that, I think it is important to draw attention to some very interesting testimony that came out of the Standing Committee on Agriculture earlier today. There was an interesting conversation that took place. We heard from Sylvain Charlebois, one of the leading experts in Canada on this particular issue, as well as Tyler McCann.
It was very interesting. They noted, and I will draw the attention of the chamber to this first, that the climate crisis, the impact that climate change is having on farmers and on the industry, is one of the most, if not the most, significant detriments that we are facing right now.
It should not be free to pollute in this country.
Having said all that, I want to come back to the point I mentioned a moment ago, which I hear often from colleagues in the Conservative Party. This is that there is a direct correlation between the price on pollution and the price of food. They will argue that if one taxes the farmer, then they are going to pass the cost on.
Here is what is interesting: Mr. Charlebois and Mr. McCann said the same thing today, which was that there is no sufficient data, no statistical analysis from the past number of years, in relation to a price on pollution in Canada that can point to its relationship with the increase in food prices.
Mr. Charlebois mentioned it. Mr. McCann reiterated it in response to a question I asked. Even my colleague from Regina, interestingly, helped me out a little bit. I had mistakenly said that Mr. Charlebois had said that the price on pollution was not contributing to the increase in food prices; my colleague from Regina mentioned that, no, he did not say that. He just said that there is no proof, that there is no evidence to support it.
I thought that this was quite contradictory, that what my colleague was perhaps unintentionally clarifying for me was, in fact, a rebuke of the primary position we see and hear taken day in and day out by my colleagues across the way. I think it is important that we recognize, as has been discussed by other colleagues at committee, in the media and by other experts in relation to this issue across the country, that these are complex issues. Canada is not immune to the challenges we are facing. It should not be free to pollute in this country.
What we heard at the agriculture committee today, in part two of the report that we are talking about right now, is that there is no evidence that can point to a relationship between the price on pollution and the increase in food prices.
With that, I will conclude my remarks and gladly speak to colleagues' questions during the next part of this conversation.
1154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 6:57:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. I would welcome anybody to review the testimony that was given today, and perhaps there will be a different interpretation of what was said.
The point of a price on pollution is to make sure that it is not free to pollute. However, they cannot then say that it will come out in the wash. Every single day we hear members of the opposition saying that the reason food prices are high is because there is a price on pollution, and yet the answer is there is no data available to show that, but we should trust them that it will come out in the wash.
I am sorry but I do not accept that as a legitimate or sufficient basis rooted in fact that permits them the ability to suggest with such emphasis and accuracy that that is in fact what is causing the inflation we are talking about in reference to this debate.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:00:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not believe I have had the opportunity to interact with my colleague. I appreciate this as the first opportunity to do so.
I am not sure I actually heard a question in there. I will very briefly—
An hon. member: Are you in pain?
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:00:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly say that people in downtown Winnipeg, which my riding is not actually located in, are paying attention to these issues.
It is an issue that is a matter of great significance to Canadians across the country. In fact, the number one issue that I heard at the door when I talk to people, if it was not the health care system that the Conservative government in Manitoba has destroyed over the course of the past eight years, it was their concerns about climate change. This is something they are paying attention to.
It is important, when we are talking in this chamber about the way in which the industry, for all sorts of different reasons, is having an impact on the lives of Canadians, that we do not feed into the rural-urban divide. It is something that I am aware exists in this country. I hope my colleague will not try to bring us back into that.
Just in relation to a comment that was made by another colleague across the way, I would simply say that the information we have available to us, and this has been shared time and again, and I know my colleagues do not want to accept this fact, is the fact that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money back than what it is costing them in the increase as a result of the price on pollution. That would be my answer in very short form in relation to the member's question.
259 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:03:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am certainly enjoying the spirit of the debate. I will try to decrease the volume so that if I repeat something I have said, I do not get accused of saying it louder and louder.
We know that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off because they are getting more money back than it is costing them when they are faced with an increase as a result of the price on pollution.
It is interesting because my colleague sits on the agriculture committee with me, and we have heard from lots of farmers, so he knows very well I have had conversations with farmers. He knows very well that conversations are taking place with farmers at that committee, that conversations take place with farmers whom I meet from my home province of Manitoba or from Saskatchewan and Alberta. They come to say hello and pay me a visit here in my parliamentary office on the Hill, and conversations take place with constituents in ridings where there are farmers.
The member was right to say that I represent an urban riding. I do not think that discredits me from having a voice on this, and I do not think he was suggesting that, so it does make sense that I am not speaking to farmers in my riding. However, I am speaking to people all of the time in relation to my work on the agriculture committee, and I will say that I have learned a lot, genuinely, from my colleagues from all parties, as I begin my career here.
I do want to thank the hon. member. It is very generous for colleagues to say that, because I am new, they are going to cut me some slack. I certainly hope that will be the case for some time to come.
305 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:05:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to be careful because the last time I said I spoke to farmers who were not opposed to the carbon tax, my colleague told me they were not real farmers. I am not sure who gets to decide who is a real farmer and who is not.
When I did have a conversation with those farmers, they told me very clearly that they had concerns about climate change and they had concerns about the impact that climate change is having on the planet and on the property that they have tended to for generations in their family. Therefore, yes, I have had those conversations. Whether my colleague is willing to accept that they are farmers is not for me to decide.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:15:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, part of me wishes that actually the member got louder and louder; he was speaking so gently and so nicely. I hope he will speak up in the response. I also just wanted to very quickly say that he is actually my member of Parliament at our family cottage that has been in the family for a long time. I believe that my aunt was a teacher of his in Kenora. I can see that some of her wonderful teaching traits rubbed off on him.
I wonder if my hon. colleague, the hon. member of Parliament for Kenora, could speak to what he is seeing, if at all, the impacts of climate change are in the community that he represents and what conversations may be taking place with his constituents in relation to that issue which, of course, as we know, is directly related to the food industry and therefore the subject at hand.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:33:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I see that we are surrounded by folks who are about to be riveted by the exchange, and I do not want to delay too long the late show, which I know is about to take place between my two colleagues.
I would just like to ask my hon. colleague from Regina if he could comment on the shift in economic policy we are seeing in places such as the European Union, where they are beginning to incorporate tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that are not seriously tackling a price on pollution. I would be curious to know what he or his leader would do, should they find themselves faced with having to create policy on behalf of the Government of Canada, in relation to our trading partners, on imports and that very critical component of a price on pollution, which they are starting to take seriously.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
