- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
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
- Dec/1/23 11:28:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this coming Monday, the CEO of Sobeys will be back to testify about food prices.
For two years, the Liberals have been beating around the bush both on bringing food prices down and on standing up to grocery CEOs. Anyone can tell us that the minister's little meeting, where he asked the rich CEOs nicely to stop gouging Canadian grocery shoppers, had no impact.
By bringing back the grocery CEOs, the NDP has given the minister a chance to right his wrongs, so will the Liberals crack down on the out-of-control price gouging?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have yet to hear Conservatives talk substantially about the record profits that oil and gas companies are making. These companies are literally swimming in piles of cash right now. We have not seen profits like this for years.
I am wondering if my Conservative colleague would like to address the elephant in the room. They complain about high fuel prices but say nothing about record profits. Does he have any comments or policies to address that unfair situation, which is affecting people from coast to coast to coast?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did appreciate how the member for Montcalm made mention about corporate profits, especially in oil and gas. If we are going to talk about inflationary costs related to fuel and completely ignore the windfall profits that oil and gas companies are making off the backs of working families right now, we are doing a very real disservice.
Today, a report came out from Canadians for Tax Fairness. It reported that Canadian corporations paid $30 billion less than would be expected under the current corporate tax rates, so there is a very real problem here.
I wonder if the member for Montcalm can inform the House as to why both the official opposition and the governing Liberals seem to avoid talking about this serious issue in any real and meaningful way.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is really a true honour and a pleasure to speak to Bill C-31. For my wonderful constituents back in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are watching, today's debate is on the legislative framework the NDP has forced the Liberal government to bring in to establish an interim dental benefit for children under the age of 12 and also to provide an important subsidy to people who are struggling to pay their rent.
It is a moment of great pride because, in the last election, dental care was a very key focus of mine during the campaign. I am filled with gratitude to be able to stand in this House and tell constituents that we are actually delivering on something that would make a real difference.
I have been here for seven years now, and one thing I have learned about the House of Commons is that memories can be short in this place, so I think it is important that we take a little walk down memory lane and set the table of this debate with what happened just last year in the previous 43rd Parliament. I have to give credit to our former colleague Jack Harris, the former New Democratic member of Parliament for St. John's East, because it was last year in the spring session that he brought forward Motion No. 62.
Motion No. 62 called upon the federal government to put in a dental care plan as soon as possible for families earning less than $90,000, as an interim measure. We debated that in May and June, and when it came to a vote on June 16 of last year, unfortunately it did not pass the House. In fact, the final vote tally was 285 votes against and 36 in support. I will acknowledge the 10 Liberal MPs who did find it in their conscience to see this as a benefit and vote with us, but the vast majority of the Liberal Party and all of the Conservatives voted against it.
What a difference a year makes. Here we are now in this 44th Parliament, and we are actually debating a real legislative agenda, a government bill, that hopefully will make its way to committee soon and then through the legislative process so that we can get this established. It would establish, as an interim measure, an important dental care benefit for children under the age of 12. That would be expanded next year to include children under the age of 18, seniors and persons with disabilities. Of course our plan is to have the full thing running by the end of this Parliament, the 44th, so that all families earning under $90,000 can access much-needed dental care benefits.
If we were to take a poll of words used in this chamber, we all know that “inflation” is occupying every member's mind right now. We hear it constantly from our constituents. It is all over the media. We can see it every time we go and fill up our car or go shopping for food. The cost of living is becoming unbearable for too many families, and that includes those in my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
However, what is not being spoken of enough is its primary causes. Not enough people in this place are talking about how corporate greed is driving inflation. I listen to my Conservative colleagues complain about the high price of gas, but they say nothing about the massive corporate profits that are happening in the oil and gas sector or about how those companies are profiting off the backs of working families in their ridings. Instead, they want to continue the argument over carbon pricing.
It is a position the Conservatives once supported under former leader Preston Manning. They briefly flirted with it in the previous election before abandoning it. They want to continue having that conversation, but they also do not talk about the inflationary effects of climate change. I live in British Columbia. Last year, just months apart, we had devastating wildfires and catastrophic floods that cut off Vancouver from the rest of the country. They caused billions of dollars of damage and we are still, to this day, trying to clean up from them.
The Conservatives' answer is to try to target people's employment insurance and the Canada pension plan. They, incorrectly in my view, call those “payroll taxes”. I do not know of any other tax that pays me a deferred wage when I retire like the Canada pension plan does. I do not know why one would go after a retirement vehicle that so many Canadians depend on for their retirements and so many Canadians who find themselves with a disability depend on, or an insurance program that is there for when one loses their job.
Granted, employment insurance does have a lot of problems. Certainly our party, the NDP, has been very vocal about those problems. However, the concept of the program is a sound one, even if it does need some drastic improvements. The concept of having to pay a little into an insurance program for that day when a person may lose their job through no fault of their own is a sound concept. That program and CPP are programs that we need to build upon to lift each other up and to truly support Canadians who are in need.
I want to stay focused on Bill C-31 and the need for dental care. It is very important in this country. If we look at the statistics, population-wide, millions of Canadians have reported skipping going to the dentist because of the cost. There has been a lot of talk in this place about too much money chasing too few goods. I would agree with the first part: There is too much money. There is too much money lining corporate bank accounts, and there is too much money being paid out in bonuses to CEOs. This is at a time when people are making incredibly tough choices at the grocery store.
I will make no secret of the fact that, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I hope my colleagues will join me to investigate the corporate profits that exist in the grocery sector, a sector of which more than 80% is dominated by three companies. However, we are not paying enough attention to how that is driving inflation. We could look at the markups that are going on with food. They are rising far faster than the general average.
With dental care, this is a moral issue for me. We are debating an amendment today that was put forward by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, a Conservative MP, which would essentially kill Bill C-31. That is where the Conservatives are today. Their big response to dental care is to move a motion to kill the bill outright. What they do not talk about enough is the fact that Conservative MPs, like every MP in this place, gets to enjoy the benefits of taxpayer-funded dental care and their immediate family members get that. Essentially their motto in this place is “it is good for me but not for thee”. They will not fight to provide their constituents with the same level of benefits they enjoy as sitting members of Parliament, and I need to call them out on that because that is shameful.
It is absolutely shameful that we live in a country where families are having to make that difficult choice of whether they can afford to send their kids to see the dentist. We know that poor oral health is an indicator of worse health problems. If those problems are not looked after at an early age, if they are not detected at an early stage, they get worse and they cost our system more money. The answer is in preventative health care. It is in making sure that kids can access those services.
I know that I am in the final minute of my speech, and I just want to end on a number: 25. There are 25 NDP MPs, less than 10% of the seats in this House, and today we are debating a bill that we campaigned on. We are talking about an agenda that we have been driving. I will say this to my constituents: If 25 New Democrats in this place can punch above our weight and get this kind of action going, which would benefit so many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, imagine what a lot more could do. With that, I will conclude.
1461 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 1:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last November, the member's riding was devastated by an atmospheric river, which resulted in billions of dollars of damage right across B.C. I am just wondering when Conservatives will start talking about the inflationary effects of climate change.
Secondly, if the member is going to talk about the rising cost of food and fuel, but completely neglect the profiteering of large corporations and the profits they are making off the backs of working families, then that is some extreme cognitive dissonance. Will that member stand up for his constituents and join with the NDP to call out corporate profiteering to make sure that we are actually helping families?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 5:09:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to stand in this place and once again speak on behalf of the amazing residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am pleased to rise to support the motion that is before us today on the NDP opposition day, which has been put forward by my hon. colleague and almost neighbour, the member for Victoria from beautiful Vancouver Island.
Today's motion is really trying to bring together several themes: the theme of massive corporate profits, the theme of rampant climate change and also the theme of inflationary pressures, both as they relate to climate change and as they are affecting residents like mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, but also right across this great country of ours.
Before I delve into the specifics of the motion, I think it is important that we put today's conversation in the context of what is going on with climate change. I want to start by saying that if we look at the history of oil as an energy source, there is no argument that it has absolutely been one of our most volatile energy sources. It has experienced massive booms and busts, and with those decreases and increases in price so have risen and fallen the fortunes of many. It has never been reliable as something that is stable for people. We can see that in the current context. It has always been subject to geopolitical tensions and profiteering by various companies, which have driven the price up for ordinary consumers, and sometimes it has brought about change much faster than ordinary working Canadians can adapt to. I would argue that today's circumstances are one such example.
I also think it is very important because we are talking in the House of Commons a lot these days about inflation, but what we are not talking a lot about is the inflationary pressures of climate change. That needs to be part of this conversation.
We can look at what climate change is starting to cause around the world. Not just the world, but we can look at what happened to my home province of British Columbia last year. In one single calendar year, we had one of the highest heat waves ever recorded, which caused hundreds of deaths in the Lower Mainland and led to raging forest fires across my beautiful province, and a few short months later that was followed by one of the most disastrous flood events ever to happen in the Lower Mainland, a flood event that effectively cut off the port of Vancouver from the rest of the country.
We are talking about inflationary pressures here. We can look at how much the Government of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia and, indeed, the federal government have had to pay to adapt to that climate-related event. We have to ask ourselves this in the House, because we are talking a lot about the money that is to be made and oil as an energy source, but we never quite contemplate the question of how many future tax dollars we as a society are prepared to spend to both adapt to and mitigate climate problems as an event.
Make no mistake, this question is settled and the science is clear. Extreme weather events like the ones we saw last year are going to come more frequently. They are going to come more powerfully. We as a country are going to deal with worsening flood events, extended droughts, forest fires and massive heat waves that will bake our urban centres and kill people. This is going to cost money. It is going to be a real problem. Unless we, as the House of Commons, treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, we are failing the Canadian people and we are failing future generations. There has been a decided lack of ambition, action and commitment to effectively address this problem and put in place policies that are going to deal with it.
Going to my riding, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island, and looking at the current inflation pressures on working families, we have experienced some of the highest gas prices across the country, over $2 a litre in many cases. I have a farm truck. I remember that a couple of weeks ago I went to fill it up, and it was the first time ever that it cost more than $200 for a fill-up. That is a regular problem for working families in my riding.
We know low-income families are hit the hardest by rising prices because those increases in fuel prices not only affect the vehicles that they have to fill up on a weekly basis, in some cases for their work, but they affect everything that is transported using fossil fuels. If people are in the middle of a renovation or if they are going shopping, we know the price of food has gone up, as well as the price of materials and the cost of labour. These are all very real pressures.
On gas prices particularly, this is where we add insult to injury, because the average family in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are standing at the pump watching the dollar figure go up as they are filling up their vehicle, and then they look at the newspaper and see the record profits oil and gas companies are making in Canada today. Billions of dollars are being paid out in dividends. Billions of dollars are being paid out in corporate executive compensation. Then to add further to that, they learn that the tax dollars they are paying off every paycheque are in fact being used by the Liberal government to subsidize those very same companies, inefficient subsidies to help them with exploration, but even in the most recent budget, that subsidy to help companies with carbon capture and storage.
Let us make this very clear. Oil companies, with today's prices, are profiteering off the backs of working families, and I do not see either of Canada's biggest political parties standing up, stating that this is an unequivocal fact and putting in place policies that are actually going to help working families. Both of these parties are far too deferential to corporations in this country, and it shows by the way they argue in the House of Commons.
If we look at the federal subsidies to oil and gas, we absolutely have to change course. Canada provides more public financing to the oil and gas sector than any other G20 country. Between 2018 and 2020, Canada provided 14 times more support for the oil and gas sector than for renewable energy, and this is in the face of all the evidence we see with climate change around us. Last year alone, the Liberals handed out $8.6 billion in subsidies and public financing to the fossil fuel sector, but the cherry on the cake is the fact that they have now added a $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit, which is actually their largest “climate” item in the budget. This is unproven technology. It is money that should be spent in completely different areas if we are going to tackle this problem with the urgency that it so very rightly deserves.
In the final two minutes, in my conclusion, I want to say this. We know Canadian workers want to be a part of the climate solution. Our workers, and let us not call them oil and gas workers but energy workers, have the transferable skills to work in any industry that we put our minds to. They want to be a part of the solution. They have the skills to make Canada a renewable energy leader in this world to help put us at the forefront of the 21st century economy.
However, we need to make sure that the federal government is putting the fossil fuel industry on notice, putting Canada on notice, that we are going to change our direction, that we are going to be where the puck is going, as is the famous quote that comes often from Wayne Gretzky. We need to make those investments in renewable energy. We need to electrify our grid. We need to make those energy retrofits a part of helping low-income families, and we need to make sure that through this process we are creating those good, long-term jobs for Canadians and communities right across the country, which will make life more affordable.
I think that through this motion today we need to redirect the subsidies that we are pumping into profitable corporations and reinvest that money directly into the pockets of low-income families, just like the working families that live in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. We need to make sure that we are converting that money instead into doubling the GST credit and making sure that the Canada child benefit for recipients goes up. By putting that money directly into the pocketbooks of Canadians, we can help them with the inflationary pressures they are dealing with right now. It will make a real difference, and it will send a signal to the world that we are serious about changing course.
1556 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
