- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, the short answer is, “Yes.” I was here when the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought into force. I think it was in 2018. The reason I support Bill C-234 is that when the Liberals originally authored their bill, they put exemptions in the parent act that listed qualifying farm fuels, qualifying farm machinery and qualifying farming activity. When I look at the language that is in Bill C-234, looking at the heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses and also at fuels used for drying grain, I think those are legitimate farming activities that are in line and in spirit with the original act.
I can conclude and say very publicly here in this House that, absolutely, New Democrats will keep our vote consistent with the third reading vote that we gave, along with the Green Party, along with the Bloc Québécois and along with the Conservatives. We are choosing to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C-234.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is nice to be able to resume where I left off back in December.
Just to refresh the memory of everyone in this place, we were discussing the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
I have been a proud member of that committee for six years now and I would say that it is the best standing committee out of any committee of the House, because we often arrive at our decisions on a consensus model. We certainly have our differences, but the collegiality stems from the fact that, no matter what political party we represent, we all represent farmers in our respective ridings and have a great deal of respect for the work they do.
This particular study is unusual, if we look at the long list of studies the agriculture committee usually embarks on, in that we are dealing more with a retail issue, which of course is the subject of food price inflation. I am happy to say that this 10th report was the result of a unanimous vote on my motion for a study. The study was also backed up by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons when the NDP used our opposition day to move a motion backing up the committee's work.
Given the brutal food price inflation rates that many Canadians have been experiencing over the last couple of years, the political and public pressure of the moment, I think, really helped focus parliamentarians' efforts on this important issue in making sure we were paying it the attention it deserved, given what many of our constituents were telling us they were suffering through. Therefore, it was nice to see that unanimous vote and the fact that we were able to get into this study.
If we look at the news these days and the experts who research this particularly brutal problem, we already know that a record number of Canadians are having to access food banks. I certainly hear from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that they are having to make those difficult decisions every single week. It has affected not only the quality of food they have been able to buy, but also the quantity of food.
I think that is an enduring shame on our country, given that we pride ourselves on being an agricultural powerhouse. If we look at our standing vis-à-vis other nations around the world, we are a very wealthy country, but what we have seen over the last number of decades is that wealth is increasingly being concentrated in fewer hands, and too many of our fellow citizens are struggling to get by on the basic necessities of life.
I think this is a call to action for all parliamentarians. It is obvious that the policies we have put in place over the last 40 or 50 years and this sort of obscene corporate deference we have seen from successive Liberal and Conservative governments and the neo-Liberal orthodoxy that exists are not serving our fellow citizens right. We need to take a critical look at why that is.
This report contains a number of recommendations. I want to focus on a few of them, particularly on recommendations 11 and 13. Recommendation 11 is something that we heard not only in the course of this study, but also in other studies. It deals with the fact that many people who work in the food value chain, particularly the ones on the other side of the ledger from where the retail grocers come into play, have long been calling for a grocery code of conduct.
Initially, the calls were for a voluntary code. I think there was a tremendous amount of goodwill and a bit of leeway given to the industry to figure this out on its own and to come up with something whereby all players could develop the issue and have faith in it. However, what we have seen recently is that some of the big grocery retailers, namely Loblaws and Walmart, are now indicating they are uncomfortable with the direction the code is taking. In my humble opinion, this code simply cannot work if it is going to exclude major players like Loblaws and Walmart, so we may be arriving at a point at which the government needs to step in and enforce a mandatory code. That way, the rules are clear, concise and transparent, and all players in the food supply value chain can understand what they are and abide by them.
What we are seeing is that there is a complete lack of trust in the grocery retail sector, and for good reason. Grocery retailers have been accused and found guilty of fixing the price of bread. They have engaged in practices that, on the surface, look a lot like collusion. They have often followed each other's leads in setting prices and so on. Recently Loblaws was forced to climb down from its decision to reduce the discounts. There used to be a 50% discount on items that had to be sold that day. Often people are looking for those kinds of bargains. Loblaws was going to reduce that to 30%. That company consistently shows that it is unable to read the room and that it is completely tone deaf to the public environment in which it is operating.
Not only have consumers lost trust in grocery retailers, but on the other side, the suppliers, the food manufacturers and the hard-working men and women who work in primary production and farming have also lost trust, because when they are trying to get their goods put into a grocery market, and let us understand that 80% of Canada's grocery retail market is controlled by just five companies, which is a brutal situation and a totally unfair stranglehold on the market by those five companies, they were often subjected to hidden fees and fines for which they had no explanation.
As such, I am glad to see that recommendation 11 calls for a mandatory and enforceable grocery code of conduct.
I am also happy to see in this report recommendation 13, which asks the Government of Canada to strengthen the Competition Bureau's mandate and its ability to ensure competition in the grocery sector. The first two bullet points were about giving the Competition Bureau more legislative muscle through the Competition Act and making sure the competitive thresholds the Competition Bureau uses to evaluate mergers and acquisitions ensure that competition does not suffer.
I think, based on the hard work of this study and the recommendations of this report, we have actually seen legislative change come to this place, and it was great to see, in particular, Bill C-56 receive a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. It has passed the Senate, and it has now become a statute of Canada by virtue of the Governor General.
There are more measures contained in Bill C-59, and our leader, the member from Burnaby South's private member's bill also includes a number of very important changes. Of course members of Parliament are going to have the opportunity tomorrow, after question period, to vote on that bill, and Canadians will be watching to see which members of Parliament are serious about stepping up to fix that particular problem.
I also want to talk about the supplementary report that I included as the New Democratic member of the committee, because committee reports reflect the majority view of the committee. In the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that is almost always the unanimous view of the committee. I do not think I have ever really seen a dissenting report, but sometimes some recommendations that some members would like to have seen added to the report do not get in there.
I agree absolutely with the main thrust of the report. I think the recommendations were very strong. There were some additional ones, some supplementary ones, that I would have liked to see added. We heard from a number of witnesses who asked our committee to recommend that the government embark on legislative recognition of the right to food, so one of our recommendations would have been:
that the Government of Canada acknowledge its obligation as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to respect, protect, and fulfill the human right to food by adopting a framework law that would enshrine this right in Canadian law and require the federal government to legislate binding, specific, and measurable targets toward realizing the policy outcomes it set out in 2019 in “The Food Policy for Canada”.
Again, when so many in our population are going hungry, it is incumbent upon us as legislators and policy makers to really step up to the plate and meet that need in the moment with specific action. I think that, given that this recommendation came from people who are directly involved in the national food bank network and are dealing with this issue every single day, we would do well as policy makers to listen to that on-the-ground expertise and follow through.
I also want to take some time in the final four minutes that I have to really recognize two witnesses who appeared before our committee. They are both economics professors who go against the prevailing orthodoxy of corporate deference that so many economics professors practise. They are, particularly, Professor D.T. Cochrane and Professor Jim Stanford, who I think offer a refreshing and alternative view to the dominant orthodoxy, to look critically at why systems are the way they are.
I just want to quote Dr. Jim Stanford:
Greed is not new. Greed long predates the pandemic, but greed has had a good run in Canada since the pandemic. After-tax profits in Canada during the pandemic or since the pandemic have increased to their highest share of GDP in history. Amidst a social, economic and public health emergency, companies have done better than they ever have.
In response to one of my questions, he went on to say:
At the top of the list, there's no doubt about it, is the oil and gas sector. The excess profits earned there since the pandemic account for about one-quarter of the total mass of profits across the 15 sectors I identified in that work. The increased prices that embody those huge profit margins then trickle through the rest of the supply chain. Food processors have to pay that, so they have higher costs, nominally, but then they add their own higher profit margin on top of that. The same goes for the food retail sector. By the time the consumer gets it, there's been excess profits added at several steps of the whole supply chain. That magnifies the final impact on consumer price inflation.
Two things have been true over the last number of years. Canadians have been suffering through brutal inflation. They have seen the cost of almost everything rise to almost unsustainable levels, in fact, to unsustainable levels for too many of our fellow citizens. That is one truth of which we can see empirical evidence.
The other truth we are dealing with is that since 2019, many corporate sectors have been raking in the cash. Those two facts exist side by side, and we know for a fact that when profits are increasing in many different corporate sectors that Canadians rely on, that money has to come from somewhere, and it has been coming directly from the wallets of the constituents that I represent, the constituents that every MP in this place represents from coast to coast to coast.
I will wrap up my speech there by saying that this was an important report and these are important recommendations. I am glad to have been a member of the committee that produced this report. Of course, I will be voting to concur in it. With that I will conclude my remarks.
2018 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are really worried about keeping up with the high cost of their groceries, and the prices just keep going up.
While people are stretching their budgets to handle growing costs, rich corporations and grocery chains are making massive profits. Last week, the European Central Bank expressed concerns that CEOs are using the cost of living crisis and inflation to hike their prices, and the Bank of Canada is admitting to having the same fears.
Will the Liberals finally admit that rich CEOs and corporate greed are helping drive up food prices, and will they make them pay what they owe?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 12:27:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed at the audacity of the Conservatives on some days. I listened to the member talk about the pain at the pump that his constituents are experiencing, but nowhere in his speech did he mention the massive increase in oil and gas profits, which are up 1,011% since 2019. I invite the member to stand up in this place, stand up for his constituents who are experiencing pain at the pump and take on the corporations that are gouging them every single day. That is the cause of inflation in Canada.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 10:30:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hear Conservatives talk a lot about inflation. When we look at the size of corporate profits, for example oil and gas, their profits since 2019 have gone up 1011%. All we hear from the Conservatives on that figure is crickets, so I would like to hear from my friend. When are Conservatives going to take a stand for Canadian families, when are they going to fight the real inflation, which is the absolute concentration of corporate power in Canada, and when are they going to take them on to make sure Canadians are not being raked through the mud by these overbearing corporate increases in prices on everyday items?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/23 2:44:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are doing everything right, but they are still having to stretch their budgets to keep up with rising food costs. All the while, grocery companies are making billions. The math is not adding up. All parties agreed with the NDP to initiate a greedflation study, but the Liberals have continued to stand by while CEOs are raking in record profits.
People want the government to hold grocery chains accountable for their role in food prices. Why do the Liberals let grocery CEOs off the hook, letting them wriggle out of their responsibilities and refusing to charge a windfall profits tax?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise today to speak to the government's bill, Bill C-32, which is an act to implement some of the measures announced in the fall economic statement just a few weeks ago before we were all home for the week of Remembrance Day in our respective ridings.
Many of my colleague from all parties have spoken about this, but this comes at a time of great struggle for constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Overwhelmingly, the correspondence I get in my office regards the high cost of living and the fact that their wages are not keeping up.
We know that the increase in food prices is forcing families to make very difficult decisions at the grocery store. For that reason I am very glad to have won the unanimous support of the agriculture committee to commence a study into that and to have also had a unanimous vote here in the House of Commons acknowledging that this is a very real problem and supporting our committee's work in the weeks ahead. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing representatives of large grocery stores speak to what their companies are prepared to do to address this issue.
There is, of course, the high cost of fuel. The war in Ukraine has sent shockwaves through the energy world. We know this because Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. Through their geopolitical manoeuvring and attempts to punish countries that are supporting the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and in their fight to halt Russian aggression, we have a situation where fuel prices for all sorts of fuels have spiked dramatically.
We have a very real problem of private companies involved in those industries engaging in what I would, frankly, call war profiteering. They are taking advantage of geopolitical tensions to rake in billions of dollars of profit, at a rate that we have never seen in this country before.
As for our health care system, and I think that this is the big sleeper issue in Canada that is only just now starting to get the attention it deserves, it has gotten so bad in my riding that, while it falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, constituents are now coming to me as a federal member of Parliament and pleading with me to do something.
We need to have a nationally focused amount of attention on this crisis. We need to have a Canada where people can be assured that they can have access to primary care when and where they need it. We need to find innovative solutions to help this crisis and address it. I am disappointed that the recent meeting between provincial ministers and the federal minister has yet to result in anything concrete to address the crisis.
Of course, while Canadians are struggling, they see a situation in which it was reported that we collected $31 billion less in corporate taxes than we should have last year. At a time when Canadians are struggling with costs to make their own family budgets work and are seeing more and more of the burden falling on their shoulders, they see Canada's largest and most profitable corporations getting away with it, through innovative tax schemes and hiding their wealth offshore to escape the burden of paying their fair share in this country. That is an issue that we absolutely must pay attention to.
In response to these big issues, my friends in the Conservative Party have focused a lot of their attention on the carbon tax. Yesterday, at the agriculture committee, I agreed with my Conservative colleagues in taking a small step to address some of the challenges that our agricultural producers are facing. We will be reporting Bill C-234 back to the House.
However, on the larger issue, I think that what is ignored by my Conservative friends is the fact that the federal carbon tax does not apply in all provinces. What they are advocating for will have no effect on residents in my province of B.C. because we, as a province, have chosen not to have an Ottawa-knows-best approach on pricing pollution.
We, as a province, have preferred to retain autonomy, so our policy is determined in the B.C. legislature in Victoria under the good and sound guidance of the B.C. NDP government. It allows our province to basically take that revenue and distribute it in ways that it sees fit because we, as a province, do not think that Ottawa should have control over that policy, so we, as a province, have decided to retain autonomy.
The Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax does not take into account the fact that the inflationary pressures we see in the world are the result of things that are largely beyond the control of Canada as a country. In the United Kingdom, the Labour opposition is blaming a Conservative government for the same thing Conservatives in Canada are blaming a Liberal government for. This is a problem we see in many of the G7 countries. It is not limited to one side of the political spectrum or the other.
Again, if one is going to talk about inflationary pressures and completely ignore the massive profits oil and gas companies are making, one is doing a disservice to one's constituents. One is not addressing the elephant in the room here, which is that corporations are using inflation to hide and to pad the massive profits they are making. We need to have a serious conversation about that.
If we truly want to help Canadians with the unexpected costs that come with heating their homes and fuelling their vehicles, we need to develop policies to get them off fossil fuels. It has always been a volatile energy source. If we go back to the 1970s when OPEC, as a cartel, decided to cut production, we see what that did to North America. It has always been volatile, and as long as we remain dependent on it as an energy source, no matter what the tax policy is, we are going to suffer from that volatility. If we want to truly help Canadians, we need to encourage things such as home retrofits, and encourage programs that get them on different sources of energy.
In the meantime, if we want a policy that is effectively going to help Canadians no matter what province they live in, why do we not go with the NDP policy of removing the GST on home heating fuels? That, in fact, would benefit residents in British Columbia, unlike singly focusing on a federal carbon tax.
When I look at Bill C-32, there are certainly a few good things. I appreciate that the Liberals are starting to see things such as a Canada recovery dividend are necessary. They are limiting it to the large financial institutions. We would like to see such a model be not only not temporary but also extended to oil and gas companies and to the big box stores. This is about putting fairness into the system because right now the free market, the so-called free market, is largely failing Canadians. The free market is trying its best, but the wages are not keeping up with rising costs.
One thing members have not yet mentioned either is that there is a critical mineral exploration tax credit in Bill C-32. Canada has a very troubled history with mining, and any projects that go forward need to absolutely be done in conjunction and in consultation with first nations. If we are truly going to transform our economy into the renewable energy powerhouse it should be, those critical minerals that Canada has an abundance of are going to be key to developing that kind of technology.
What I have often found with the Liberals over my seven years of being in this place is that there are a lot of good ideas but they are not fully fleshed out. They do not go as far as they could have potentially gone to make the full impact we wish they would have done.
There is a lot in Bill C-32 for the committee to consider, and I hope it takes a lot of feedback from a wide variety of witnesses. There are measures here that are building on what we, as new Democrats, have been able to force the government to do, such as doubling the GST credit, providing an interim benefit for dental care and making sure there is help for renters.
I am proud that a caucus with less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons has been able to achieve these things. This is what I came to Ottawa to do. I came to deliver for my constituents and bring tangible results that make a difference in their lives. Through this and other measures, I will continue to do that, to make sure they are getting the full benefits and assistance they need to weather these tough times so they can come out even more prosperous on the other end.
1535 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 7:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a record number of Canadians are having to resort to food banks right now. This is a shocking statistic for a country as wealthy as Canada. We can juxtapose that with the record profits grocery chains are making. Canadians are seeing the high prices of food, looking at the record profits oil and gas companies are making and juxtaposing that with the high prices Canadians are paying at the pumps.
I am glad to see the Liberals followed our lead and agreed to bring in things such as dental care, the rental benefit and doubling the GST credit. These are things we have been calling for for quite some time, and I am glad to see the Liberals follow our lead on this, but more needs to be done.
More needs to be done, and Canadians need to see their government will no longer let corporations and rich CEOs pad their wallets and use inflation as an excuse for doing so. Therefore, I am looking for a commitment from the parliamentary secretary to see that instituted, followed up on and brought forward in the fall economic statement.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 7:03:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising during today's adjournment proceedings to follow up on a question that I asked the government on October 17, a few weeks ago.
That was the same day that the NDP brought forward its successful opposition day motion. Basically, the gist of my question was the fact that, under successive Conservative and Liberal governments, we have seen CEOs and corporations increasing their share of wealth. It is really a question of fairness. My question to the government that day was whether the government would finally admit that it has let corporate greed go unchecked by finally voting with the NDP to defend Canadian families.
In that opposition day motion vote that we had following question period, I am very pleased to report that the motion was passed by the House unanimously. I believe the vote was 327-0, which was amazing because it showed that the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Greens and the Bloc Québécois are following the NDP's lead. They are listening to their constituents and understanding that this is an issue.
To reference that motion, it asked the government to basically force CEOs and big corporations to pay what they owed and to close the loopholes that have allowed them to avoid paying $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone. It asked the government to launch a fair and affordable food strategy that tackles corporate greed in the grocery sector and to also support the agriculture and agri-food committee, where I also managed to pass an unanimous motion for study into this very issue.
We always see those news items that come out of social media, either on January 1 and January 2 of every year, which show that the average CEO has already made, in the first couple of days, more money than the average Canadian. That is why I really want to centre on this theme of fairness.
Canadians For Tax Fairness found that in 2021, 123 of Canada's largest and most profitable corporations managed to evade even more taxation than they had paid in the three years before COVID-19. That is inclusive of 2017 to 2019. This was done in a variety of ways. There are tax havens they take advantage of. There are deductions for business meals, entertainment and other expenses. Even the executives' pay itself, businesses can claim as an expense.
If we think about what $30 billion would have done, what that lost revenue that the Canadian treasury missed out on could have paid for, we could have protected and expanded even more ecosystems. We could have helped workers and communities adapt to and mitigate climate change. We could have increased the minimum wage for federally regulated industries. We could have paid more on the national debt, reduced our deficit and increased transfer payments to provinces. The list goes on as to what we would have been able to do.
I believe we need to get serious about this. The government has already followed through on some initiatives that have long been NDP demands, but I believe it needs to go further. It needs to start implementing things like a tax on extreme personal wealth. It needs to bring in a windfall profits tax to get at that money that so many corporations have been able to benefit from over the last couple of years and to really tackle those extreme profits.
We believe added resources are needed for the CRA. We need to see those higher taxes so that we can have this fair and level playing field instituted while so many Canadians are struggling to get by right now.
Again, my question to the parliamentary secretary is this: Will she, on behalf of her government, admit that corporate greed has gone unchecked and will she put in policies to address it?
644 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 11:46:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, families are being forced to turn to food banks at record rates because they cannot keep up with rising food prices. People are angry that their wages stay the same while rich CEOs are driving up costs to make millions.
The Liberals have a responsibility to support Canadians. Instead, they have let CEOs hide their massive profits behind inflation. When will the Liberals tackle corporate greed in the grocery sector to help families with their food bills?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:29:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, families are making difficult choices about what food they can afford and costs are only getting higher. Today, a report from Food Banks Canada proved that people just cannot keep up. At record rates, families are turning to food banks to get the help they need. The Liberals have a responsibility to support Canadians. Instead, they have sided with rich grocery CEOs who are hiding behind inflation to line their pockets.
When will the Liberals hold big grocers accountable for the price gouging Canadian families are experiencing?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:55:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to present a slightly different view on today's motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.
For the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, today in the House of Commons we are going to be debating a motion from the Bloc Québécois that acknowledges, in its preamble, that Canada is a democratic state and that the House of Commons believes in the principle of equality for all. Therefore, the motion calls on the House to express a desire to sever ties between the Canadian state and the British monarchy.
When I was approaching today's debate and figuring out how I would speak on it, I thought about what my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford were coming to my office for and what they were emailing and phoning me about. It is definitely not about the monarchy. People in my riding are very concerned about the rising cost in food. They are very concerned about housing unaffordability and availability. My community is going through an opioids crisis. So many immediate needs are being presented to my constituents. The monarchy is far down the list.
With all the problems we are facing in Canada today, including in the province of Quebec, why has the Bloc Québécois chosen to bring this motion before the House?
I serve on three committees with members of the Bloc Québécois. I serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. She has been a fantastic member to work with, and I often hear her in the House raise the issue of firearms violence in Quebec and illegal firearms. That matters to many Quebeckers and many Canadians. Why is the Bloc Québécois not bringing forward a motion centring on that?
I serve on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. We have worked together on improving the lot of our farmers, recognizing the link between agriculture and climate change. I know the member has spoken in the House in support of supply management. Again, this is in an opportunity that the Bloc could have used today to talk about Canadian farmers and what more we should be doing.
Bloc Québécois members have frequently stood in the House and talked about the environment, climate change and unfair tax policy, all of which could have better been served today instead of the monarchy, and issues about which I think their constituents are very concerned. How do I know this? Because they spend a lot of their time in the House talking about those issues, not the monarchy.
If we were truly concerned with the preamble of the motion today, namely that we are a democratic state and that we believe in the principle of equality for all, it could have dealt with things like the election results we see too often in our first past the post system, where there is such a disconnect between the number of seats a party wins compared to the percentage of the vote it receives. One needs to look only at the recent results in the provincial election of Quebec, where four parties in opposition received between 12% and 15% of the vote but wildly different seat counts.
In House of Commons, the New Democrats received almost double the number of votes of the Bloc Québécois, but we have less seats. The Conservatives received more votes than the Liberals, but they sit in the opposition because of the efficiency of the vote. If we are truly talking about democratic reform, the monarchy is so far down the list. We should be talking about how we elect members, how we tackle the strength and powers of the Prime Minister's Office and the decision-making powers it has in all aspects of governing; and how we can improve more parliamentary oversight over our institutions, the watchdogs we, as a legislative assembly, are supposed to be over executive power and privilege. Those things would have better been served by today's motion instead of talking about the monarchy.
When we talk about today's motion, it is important to realize that if we go into our Constitution, namely, section 41, on any amendment to Canada's relationship with the Crown, it not only requires a resolution from the House and the Senate, but we need to also have all 10 legislative assemblies of the provinces on board. Right now, the provinces are united in trying to get more health care dollars, and that is great to see, but we would never ever see the provinces unanimously support getting rid of the monarchy. They are dealing with far more pressing issues. They are dealing with a health care crisis. They are trying to reform their housing policy. They are trying to deal with an opioid crisis, a toxic drug supply.
There are far more pressing concerns, and I do not think that with all the things my constituents are worried about, my fellow British Columbians and Canadians from coast to coast to coast are worried about that we need to put ourselves into the middle of a constitutional amendment. Other parts of the Constitution would be far more worthy of amending, but not our relationship with the monarchy.
I do not consider myself to be a rabid monarchist. I am pretty laissez-faire about our relationship with the monarchy. It does not bother me in my day-to-day workings, not only as a citizen of our country but also as a member of Parliament. In my humble opinion, monarchs can truly be above politics. They do not have any political affiliations. In fact, if the King were to meddle in domestic politics, that would be seen as highly inappropriate and would probably result in a constitutional crisis.
It is important to realize that our oath to the King, to the heirs and successors of the King, is not to an individual person; it is rather to that person as an embodiment of the Crown as an institution. It is a symbol of the Canadian state, a ship that continues to sail on despite the occasional changing of its captains. The monarch's continual rule provides legislative and policy consistency over long periods of time. Governments come and go but the Crown remains.
Canada is not alone in this. Constitutional monarchies in western Europe include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Monaco, Belgium, Luxembourg and Sweden, countries we would all uphold as successful, with strong social foundations, strong democratic participation and, in many cases, serving as models for what Canada could aspire to be. Asia, Japan and Thailand are also constitutional monarchies as well.
When we are talking about the institution of Parliament, and this is what I like to talk to my students in my riding about, because we often talk about Parliament and the House of Commons interchangeability, Parliament means the House, the Senate and the Crown, which is represented by our Governor General, all three constituent parts that are required to pass a bill into law. No bill could become a law without any of those bodies playing an important role.
I also want to address the need for the monarchy to address past injustices. I may be saying that the monarchy is okay to stay in Canada, but that does not mean it cannot and must not change with the times in which we find ourselves. Many people around the world have a very troubled history and relationship with the British Crown. It has to confront and deal with legacies of colonialism, of slavery and, particularly in Canada, the treatment of indigenous people and residential schools.
His Majesty King Charles III has an unparalleled opportunity to move the monarchy forward in a way that is acceptable and more relevant to today's generation. As a king, he has the opportunity to go further than his predecessors, to truly understand the 21st century in which we find ourselves. It is my sincere hope that in his first visit to Canada, he takes the time to meet with indigenous elders to truly understand the Crown's role in the residential school system and in colonialism. He owes that to Canada's indigenous peoples, he owes that to the wider public here to fully address those past wrongs and to set a path forward.
I will not be supporting this motion today. I will continue to stand in the House and represent my constituents and their far more pressing needs.
1467 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me get this straight. The Conservative position on this argument is that the taxpayer-funded dental care benefits that they enjoy as members of Parliament are okay, but when we are fighting to extend the same service to their constituents, that is not okay. That is what the Conservatives are saying publicly, just so we are clear.
We have millions of Canadians who are not covered by provincial programs. That is a fact. The Conservatives like talking about the term “gatekeepers”. Why are Conservatives being gatekeepers against kids under 12 getting the dental care that they enjoy?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how dental care is health care. I think that too often during this debate we have set up this false dichotomy. Dental care is health care, and that has to be established. It is ridiculous that public coverage ends at one's tonsils and does not go to one's teeth. I wonder if my hon. colleague could quickly expand on that point and add any final thoughts he might have.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my hon. friend asked: Where is the support? I can say in all honesty to her that I have never had a more generous outpouring of support and total glee at the announcement of a program than I have had with this one. For the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the status quo is not working.
With respect to my Conservative colleagues, I think they are mixing up Bill C-31 with what will eventually be the program. It is important to emphasize that Bill C-31 is an interim dental benefit until the fully functioning program can come online. It is important to make that distinction and I think it is important to understand that there is room from improvement and consultations.
Right now for the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the status quo is not working for them. Their children need help and they are incredibly happy that I am delivering for them on this promise.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 2:30:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while grocery CEOs are making millions of dollars in bonuses, Canadians have been making difficult choices about what groceries they can afford. Today, after pressure from the NDP, Loblaws showed that it is possible to freeze prices, but it needs to be forced to do it.
This afternoon the Conservatives and the Liberals have an opportunity to help people instead of the rich CEOs who are profiting off of struggling Canadians. Will the government admit that it has let corporate greed go unchecked by finally voting with the NDP to defend Canadian families?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to encounter any more delays for the children in my riding who desperately need dental care. We know that those regular dental checkups are so important for overall oral health.
Could the Minister of Health comment on how those regular checkups for children under the age of 12 would actually save our system a lot of money going forward because of early detection of oral health problems, and how this would really help families that struggling to make difficult choices week in and week out?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/7/22 11:15:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this week, the NDP has been successful in making sure that Parliament addresses the issue of corporate greed in driving inflation, and not only in the House of Commons but also at committee.
Since we have launched our initiative, I have been receiving correspondence from right across the country. I have had pictures from people in Nova Scotia that have shown huge price increases for the same product, in the same town, on the same day. I have had correspondence from employees in grocery stores who are confirming that these unreasonable price increases are happening, and we combine that with the fact that Canada collected $30 billion less in corporate taxes just from last year alone.
I want to end by wishing my constituents a happy Thanksgiving. As they are struggling to pick out which kinds of food they can put on the family table this weekend, I want them to know that my colleagues and I in the NDP will continue fighting for them to ensure they have equal access to well-priced food.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 10:20:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am so glad to see Conservatives, yet again, going to bat for their corporate friends. If the member thinks this is an NDP policy, he should look across the Atlantic Ocean to Conservatives in the United Kingdom who are proposing the exact same policy and have implemented what we are pursuing.
It is actually time for Conservatives to wake up, listen to their constituents, stop moaning about taxes and going after CPP and EI, and join us in going after the corporate fat cats who are profiting from an economy that so many Canadians are suffering under.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/22 10:08:08 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that,
(i) big grocery stores have made massive profits in the past year, not long after several were investigated for bread price-fixing,
(ii) workers’ wages and the prices paid to producers in the agricultural sector are not keeping up with those corporate profits, or with inflation,
(iii) Canadian families are struggling with the rising costs of essential purchases,
the House call on the government to recognize that corporate greed is a significant driver of inflation, and to take further action to support families during this cost-of-living crisis, including:
(a) forcing CEOs and big corporations to pay what they owe, by closing the loopholes that have allowed them to avoid $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone, resulting in a corporate tax rate that is effectively lower now than when this government was elected;
(b) launching an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed in the grocery sector including by asking the Competition Bureau to launch an investigation of grocery chain profits, increasing penalties for price-fixing and strengthening competition laws to prohibit companies from abusing their dominant positions in a market to exploit purchasers or agricultural producers; and
(c) supporting the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in investigating high food prices and the role of “greedflation”, including inviting grocery CEOs before the committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to notify the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Today is a good day in the House of Commons because we as New Democrats are forcing parliamentarians to deal with the issues that are concerning Canadians. The motion that we as a party are bringing forward for debate today is specifically calling out the massive corporate profits that are occurring in so many sectors, often at the expense of what ordinary Canadians are able to afford.
Canadians see this week in and week out. They see it when they fill up their vehicles with fuel and they see it when they are at the grocery stores. It is reaching a breaking point for many families. It is forcing too many families to make difficult decisions that no family in a country as wealthy as Canada should have to make. These are decisions on whether their family budgets can afford to pay the rent or mortgage, decisions on whether we can get as much fresh produce for our young children as we used to get and decisions on whether we should only fill up the car with half a tank this week because we need to save money for next week.
This is the reality for too many families, and not only in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, but across British Columbia and across Canada, from coast to coast to coast. For far too long, these Canadians have been looking at the profits that have been made, especially over this year. Some oil and gas companies are making over 100% more compared with what they were making just a few years ago. I hear a lot of talk in this place about taxes, but not enough talk is happening about the revenue we are losing, the revenue that would be there to support Canadians who are in dire need of it.
It is important that Canadians see that their members of Parliament are addressing their concerns. It is important that they see the people they have sent to this place debating this issue with sincerity and making policies that are going to address it. That is why I am such a proud member of the New Democratic caucus. We have been the only party in this place to call out massive corporate profits and champion an excess profits tax. We will continue to champion that until policy-makers see the light in this place and respond with effective policy.
I want to segue to the remarkable success that Canadians enjoyed yesterday at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I want to thank my colleagues from that committee who agreed to my motion to study the excess profits in the grocery sector in particular.
I want to centre particularly on food because food is the great equalizer in our society. No one can live without food. Everybody needs to eat, but some in our society are able to eat without worry. Others have to make difficult choices. When it comes to our nation's children, we know that a healthy and balanced diet is incredibly important not only for their growth, but for their ability to achieve a good education. In a country as wealthy as Canada, far too many children are suffering.
Juxtapose that reality with the fact that the three largest grocery chains in Canada have been raking in the money. We can look at Empire's net profits, which are up by 27.8% in two years. Loblaws profits are up by 17.2% compared with those of last year, and Metro's are up by 7.8%. I know that the CEO of Sobeys has recently been in the news complaining about us taking up an examination of their profits and shining a spotlight on this issue, but if I am in the bad books of a corporate CEO, I think I am doing my job properly in this place.
Those profits are publicly available, but I also want to identify the fact that calls are coming from inside the house. Last week, my office received an email from an employee. I am going to keep him anonymous. I am not going to mention who he works for, because he is afraid of reprisals, but I will quote him. He said:
I have noticed a worrying trend over the last year of large quantities of retail price increases being sent down on a weekly basis.... However, cost increases on these items don't match the increases of retail prices that are sent down....
I have noticed a trend where retail prices consumers must pay for products will increase, and cost increases will come down months after the fact, if at all. Based on what I know of our systems at [the] store level this means that the profit margins on saleable goods will increase for the company until a related cost increase brings it back down. Thus prices consumers must pay are overinflated until costs align with the retail change....
...That is why I believe that a federal probe into grocery store price increases should be supported in our parliament.
I would say to that employee that the New Democrats have heard their call. We are taking action and we are leading the initiative in this Parliament, not only at committee but in the House of Commons, to address this person's concerns and the concerns Canadian consumers have.
We are not going to stop there. We are also going to go after oil and gas. It is one thing to talk about the carbon price, a price on pollution, but if the government is going to completely ignore the massive profits that oil and gas companies are making off the backs of working Canadians, I think it needs to do some reflection on where its policies stand.
We are at a point where the CEO of Shell is being more progressive than the Liberals and calling out something the Conservatives will not even touch. I do not know what kind of a topsy-turvy world we live in when we have to depend on a CEO to be more progressive than our own government, but it is shameful.
In British Columbia, my constituents know the price of gas. They see it all the time, but they can also match that up with what large oil and gas companies are raking in right now. We need to follow the lead of other countries like the U.K. We need to implement an excess profits tax. That natural resource is owned by Canadians. Private companies have the privilege of bringing it out of the ground and selling it back to us, but it is a resource that is owned by Canadians. It is high time we put in place policies to make sure we are getting the full value out of it.
We also heard earlier this week that last year alone we did not collect $30 billion in corporate taxes. That is the difference between what corporations actually paid and what they should have paid. We are having this talk about the structural deficits we see in our housing and the structural deficits in supports for Canadians who are going through hard times, and then we look at what $30 billion in one year alone could have paid for: How many doctors could we have hired? How many school food programs could we have implemented? How many workers could we have retrained with that money to prepare them for the 21st-century economy?
That is the fundamental question before us. It is a question of what we want to be as a country. Do we really want to pursue well-funded programs that help lift everybody up, not just those at the top? I know where I stand on this matter, and I hope colleagues and other parties will do some genuine reflection on where they stand as well.
We are in a place where there has been extreme inaction from both the Liberals and Conservatives. If we were to follow Conservative tax policy, the Margaret Thatcher cosplay they are so often engaging in, we need only look to the United Kingdom as to what Conservative policy would result in. The Conservative prime minister there has single-handedly caused the U.K. economy to go into an absolute economic free fall through tax policies that rightly belong in the 1980s and have no place in the 21st-century economy, especially when we are trying to address massive inequality.
I know I am in my last minute of this speech, but I want to assure my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and people in British Columbia and people right across this great country that, for as long as I have the privilege of standing in this place, I will never let them down. I will continue to aggressively pursue these progressive policies. I will do that until we actually see the fundamental change we need to see.
1749 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
