SoVote

Jun/3/24 8:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks the answer is an NDP government, why does he not stop propping up the government and have an election? We could have it out.

30 words

Election

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 8:10:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we will have an election when the member's constituents are voting on whether or not to axe the dental care that thousands of his constituents are now accessing, the pharmacare for diabetes and contraception medications that thousands of his constituents would be getting or the affordable housing that is being built. We will have an election, but the election will be on what Conservatives want to axe and whether Canadians want to go down that road. I am quite confident his constituents will say no to axing all of those services and programs that are helping people.

100 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Jun/3/24 8:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge. It is always a true honour to stand in the House of Commons to represent the amazing people of Peterborough—Kawartha, as well as so many Canadians across the country who feel that their voices have been muffled after nine years of the Prime Minister. What are we talking about in the House tonight? We are talking about the concurrence motion of an NDP report of the finance committee. The report reads: Given that the Canadian grocery sector made more than $6 billion in profit in 2023 and that millions of Canadians have reported food insecurity in the last year, the Standing Committee on Finance call on the government to immediately take action by implementing an excess profit tax on large grocery companies that would put money back in the people's pocket with a GST rebate and establish a National School Food Program, and that this motion be reported to the House. That is the motion that was put forward by the NDP. We, Conservatives, put forward an amendment, which reads: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, May 6, 2024, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend a more efficient alternative to address food insecurity among Canadians this summer by calling on the government to eliminate the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and GST on gasoline and diesel between now and Labour Day.” Here, in its fundamental essence, is the difference in the choice that Canadians have between two ideologies. We have one Liberal-NDP approach, where they say,“Let us put a band-aid on this”, and then we have the Conservatives who are saying, “Let us actually figure out what is causing the cost of food to rise so rapidly, and let us try to fix it. Let us try to make life more affordable for Canadians. Let us ensure that their paycheques actually work for them, and that they are able to have autonomy and freedom and be able to not have that stress of feeding their children.” I want to talk about Food Banks Canada's latest report card launch. I co-sponsored this event, and I have to tell members that it was shocking, abysmal and heartbreaking, to be honest. The stats that came out of this report card from Food Banks Canada were the worst ever. It was a morning event, and there was representation from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc, but not one single NDP member of Parliament was there. I want to tell members some of the things that came out of that, and this is from the Food Banks report, which states, “Canada has reached a critical turning point as poverty and food insecurity worsen in every corner of the country”. We know that 61% of food bank users in Canada last year were first-time users, that there was a 50% increase in food bank visits, that one in four Canadians are experiencing food insecurity, that 44% feel worse off financially compared to a year ago, and that two million people a month are accessing a food bank, which is a historical high, and one in three of those are children. The problem is, if we continue to tax and punish the people who grow the food, it will keep driving up the cost of food. There is something I find so remarkable. I have even heard a member from the Liberals say this, and I heard it on the recent Power Play program of May 22, where there was a Liberal and an NDP member talking about this. They actually said that an excess profit tax would eventually be downloaded to the consumer. What do they think the carbon tax is? Who do they think pays for the carbon tax? If it costs the farmer more to grow the food, he is going to have to download that to the trucker who comes and picks up the food. Now, the trucker has increased costs and that cost is then increased down to the grocery store owner who has to put it onto the shelf, and then guess who has to buy that? It is the people. They actually say that, then they vote for it, and then we have this wild ideology, which has been said in the House, with them saying, “You know what? Why don't you just let the planet burn?” That is their go-to. They shame people. We saw this across the board with vaccinations. We saw this in so many things, and they will say, “If you don't do what we say, if you don't think like us, you're a bad person.” This is a message I got from David Jones: Hello Michelle, thank you so much for all you do for our city, and for striking back against our current Prime Minister, and his completely out of touch and irresponsible leadership of our country. My family and I, which consist of myself, my wife and our three young children are struggling to pay for gas now with the new tax that's been introduced. We want to voice our opinion, and hopefully give you more fuel to tell our Prime Minister that this tax makes no sense, and is harming the very people that it's supposed to help. I work for a nonprofit in town helping youth who are at risk, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to be able to afford to get to the places I need to be to support them in these increasingly challenging times, as they face record highs in fentanyl overdoses and completely unaffordable living conditions in our country, and in our province, and in our city. This was from the Jones family. I thank them for writing and telling me this. Brian Haass is a farmer in the Otonabee-South Monaghan township. Brian has been speaking out about the carbon tax and what it is doing to consumers and small businesses. Small businesses are shutting down at record rates. They cannot compete anymore. They are getting squeezed out. Then we have this record-high usage. This all comes down to making life affordable. The more we tax people, the less money they have in their paycheques and they cannot make ends meet. Everything goes up. If people spend more than they are making, it drives up inflation and we have this vicious cycle. Why not make life more affordable? It is literally the most compassionate thing to do. Right now, the Liberals are spending more on servicing the debt than they are on health care. I do not need to tell people watching this about health care in this country. They already know what it is. They already know they have to wait in the waiting room. They already know there are people who have overdosed. Last week, at 7 p.m. on a Tuesday, in front of the Rideau Centre, a person overdosed in the middle of the sidewalk. That is the reality of this country under the Prime Minister. I want to talk about what Brian Haass said. He is a farmer, one of the ones growing the food. Carbon tax has put 60% on Brian's drying costs in the last two years. I asked, “How does that impact [families] buying food at the grocery store?”, and Brian said, “It's incredible because that's just one spot where we get nailed with the carbon tax. When you bring your wheat in for example and you dry the wheat...boom, carbon tax. Then, when we truck the wheat to the elevator, carbon tax. Then when the elevator trucks it to the mill there's another carbon tax to make the flour. Then when it goes to make the bread there's a carbon tax. Then the freaking loaf of bread has to be wrapped in something. There's carbon tax on that. Then it has to get to the warehouse. Another carbon tax on the fuel for example. And on and on till it gets to your grocery store shelf.” Bread has gone up 75% under the Prime Minister. Tanya Bailey sent me her gas bill today. Her customer charge is $22, her delivery is $39, her transportation to Enbridge is $16 and the federal carbon charge is $50.17. It is to the point that people have completely lost hope. They have lost everything. People are losing their homes on top of it. Building has been halted and builders cannot build. Builders testified at the HUMA committee, saying there is no chance they will meet their target because the carbon tax and all of these things add to the cost of building houses. Conservatives put forward a common-sense motion today and said people need to be able to focus on something positive. When they are sinking, they need to know. Summer is coming. Families need each other more than ever. Kids need their parents and parents need their kids. They need connection. They are on their screens and are disconnected mentally and physically because they have to go to work to pay for this. Both parents are struggling so much. We put forward a common-sense motion that would save Ontarians, in particular, $590 if the Liberals cut the carbon tax on fuel between now and Labour Day. We just want to give them a break. The message was, no, people should put their kids in a car and “let the planet burn”. That is what the Minister of Health said. I stand here today and say that Conservatives will fight for them. We are listening. We know life is challenging and we understand that the bigger picture is to make life more affordable. That is the goal.

1710 words

Ontarians

Hon. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 8:21:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, I wanted to correct the record. The Minister of Health did not say, “Let the planet burn.” What the minister was talking about was climate change and the need for Canadians and everyone in this entire world to take climate change seriously. We do not want to see the temperatures increase, and we do not want to see the world burn. That was the intention of the comment. What is the Conservatives' plan to stop climate change?

82 words

Climate
Burn

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Jun/3/24 8:22:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it might not have been his intention, but it is actually verbatim what he said in the House. That is the reality of it, and I think there is this element of shame. As I said earlier in my speech, the Minister of Health went on a full-blown rage and said something to the effect of, “Let us be like the Conservatives and go on a road trip for 10 hours, where our kids do not get any bathroom breaks and we let the planet burn.” That is what he said. I am not saying it; he said it. Whether he intended that or not is not the point. I find her question about what the Conservatives would do fascinating. We say it repeatedly, and I will say it again. If one trusts Canadians, especially farmers, who are environmental stewards of this land; if one trusts businesses that are environmentally friendly, that care for the planet and want to do the right thing; and if one gets out of the way so they can afford to invest in their businesses and not have to shut down, then they will do the right thing. However, the Liberal government prevents businesses from doing anything. They are leaving this country. We have nobody coming in. They do not even want to do business with Canada. That is the first place to start.

234 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/3/24 8:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha continues the Conservative thesis that the carbon tax is the primary driving factor behind the skyrocketing food prices we have seen. However, the numbers have actually been crunched, and it increases prices by a tiny amount. Trevor Tombe at the University of Calgary found that the carbon tax increases food prices by 0.3%. Last January, food price inflation was 10.4%; therefore, the vast majority of food price inflation is driven by something other than the carbon tax. What is it driven by? It is driven by, first, corporate profit-taking; second, extreme climate events, somewhat ironically; and third, challenges in the supply chain. The member did not mention any of those other factors in her speech. The other thing I will note is that, last month, the carbon tax went up and food price inflation went down. If the carbon price is the primary factor driving food price inflation, how could that be possible?

164 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Jun/3/24 8:24:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a deep ideological clash here. The other thing he left out is that the Prime Minister has spent more money than he has brought in. That is just a fact. The Prime Minister says that the budget will balance itself and that he does not care about monetary policy. We have heard that over and over again. I want to bring up some points. I will go back to Brian Haass, who owns Haass Acres, and my interview with him. I said to him that people did not really understand how significant the carbon tax is on their day-to-day life, and he said that he really believed people did not “grasp the gravity of this carbon tax” in how it affects their day-to-day lives. He said, “It affects absolutely every facet of your life. Everything you own, everything you buy, everything you do is carbon taxed, compounded on top of more tax.” Then one pays the tax on top of the tax. This year, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost families $2,943 in Alberta; $2,618 in Saskatchewan; $1,750 in Manitoba; $1,674 in Ontario; $1,500 in Nova Scotia, $1,605 in Prince Edward Island, $1,874 in Newfoundland and Labrador and $1,963 Canada-wide. Canadians do not have this extra money.

230 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/3/24 8:26:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the member finish her thoughts on this bizarre attack on the family road trip that we have observed from this side?

24 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri

Jun/3/24 8:26:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there has been an attack on families since the day the Prime Minister came into office. Canada has the lowest birth rate in history. He does not care about the family. He cares about power and control, and so does the NDP leader, because he sold out his soul to ensure that he keeps power. That is the reality of the Prime Minister.

65 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/3/24 8:26:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here we are tonight in a concurrence debate. There was a report from the finance committee on grocery stores and a recommendation to the House to create some kind of extra profit tax. It came out of the finance committee, but the Conservatives have a better solution that we have offered through an amendment to the report. We think that there is a more effective, more efficient, quicker and easier way for Parliament and for the government to improve the ability of Canadians to afford food than getting into the tax change they are proposing. In our motion, we “recommend a more efficient alternative to address food insecurity among Canadians this summer by calling on the government to eliminate the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax and GST on gasoline and diesel between now and Labour Day.” That is what we are debating tonight. I share concerns that have been raised about the concentration of grocery retailing in Canada. I am very concerned, under the current government, about the extent to which competition has been reduced in a variety of sectors, including banking and telecoms. The Canadian consumer would be better served, I am certain, with better and more competition for retail of groceries, but the government could fix or at least address the growing number of Canadians who are food-insecure, though let us not mess around with labels here and say “food insecurity”. Let us just get real. People are hungry. People are skipping meals. People are compromising on the quality of ingredients they buy. We have seen it. There are countless studies that have come out showing that it is affecting millions of Canadians. There are people hungry in Canada in 2024. The government could do something immediately that would improve the personal finances of Canadians and help consumers to afford more and better food, and that is to get rid of all the taxes. That would to bring down their transportation costs, which would free up more money for food, and it also would directly impact the price of food. We have been calling for relief from the carbon tax in many ways from the government. In fact, the House of Commons has passed a bill that would have taken the carbon tax entirely off farmers so they would not have to pay the carbon tax to heat barns and buildings and to dry grain, and for all of these kinds of things. The other place amended the bill, gutted it and took out one of the most critical parts of it: the buildings and the barns. That is something that could be done too, but if the government would just listen and accept the advice in a motion that we voted on today and get rid of the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, the GST on gasoline and diesel, we could bring down costs for consumers. That would be so important for so many reasons. It would help both the producers and the consumers. A consumer has basic costs: shelter, food, clothing and transportation. The carbon tax directly impacts all of these things, but especially food and transportation. It does not matter whether someone owns a car or not; the carbon tax and the other federal taxes on fuel affect the ability of municipalities to run transit systems, so even if someone takes the bus, they would benefit from the proposal that the Conservatives have to send back to the finance committee. If someone does have to drive their car to get to the grocery store or to take their children to activities or school, then reducing their budget for transportation is going to help make up what is available for food, shelter or other needs. A Canadian who is at least able to get by, and can actually, on a month-to-month basis, afford the home they live in and afford to keep a car on the road and food in the fridge, might want to just take a little vacation this summer. The proposal would help Canadians who are struggling and who just want to put the kids in the car, as the health minister talked about in question period the other day, and drive out to the mountains, the lake or the beach, depending on where they live and what kinds of things they have nearby for recreation. This is Canadiana; it is what Canadians do. They get out and go to see the beautiful country that we live in. We live in such a beautiful land with so much to offer for summer recreation, or winter recreation for that matter, or any recreation at any time of year. Why not celebrate the outdoors and celebrate the people of this country? Why not be able to go visit a relative? I plan to go on a road trip this summer. I am not planning a major vacation or anything, but I hope to have a chance to visit relatives who live in other parts of the country and to maybe get out to the mountains west of Calgary. It is what Canadians do. The least the government could do is not make the basics more expensive for Canadians. A Canadian who can save a little bit of money on their fuel to go on a trip this summer is just going to have more money in their bank account for other things. However, the approach of the government has been to tax and regulate the economy to the point where we are at the very bottom of the G7 for per capita GDP growth, because our per capita GDP growth is not growth at all; it is contraction. Per capita, we are going backwards. Per capita, Canadians are getting poorer. Canadians are going backwards while life gets more expensive. It is a spiral that we need to get out of. The only way we are going to get out of it is with a change of government. It is the only way forward, so that we can fix the budget and be able to get serious about the basic core responsibilities of government, like national defence, public safety, and ensuring that health transfers will be there in the years ahead. We are spending more now on interest than on health transfers. We spend far more on interest than we do on national defence. We are going to need a strong economy. We are going to need new investment. We are going to need regulatory relief and tax relief to make these things happen. The only way we are going to get out of the spiral and see Canadians' per capita income go up instead of down in the years ahead is with a new signal for strong economic leadership. We have to get rid of the gatekeepers who are destroying the ability for anyone to get projects approved in this country. There has been capital flight. There has been the cancellation of projects, which has been ongoing for the last nine years. There is a carbon tax that continually goes up, is piled on Canadians and interferes with their ability to do basic things like afford groceries; get in their car, put some gas in the tank and go on a small trip; or even just get themselves to work and back on a day-to-day basis. We need to get away from the continual regime of further and greater red tape, regulation and taxes, and get back to a country that can work and where people's work is rewarded, where people can afford to live and where people can afford their homes, groceries and transportation.

1284 words

Hon. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 8:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and I kept hearing about the price on pollution going up. The member is misleading Canadians by saying that there is this price on pollution but is leaving out the part about how this price is returned to Canadians through rebates, and the rebates also continue to go up. Eight out of 10 Canadians will receive more money than they spend on the price on pollution. This is in order to incentivize people to make different decisions. This is exactly what we as a society are going to have to do. We are going to have to make extremely difficult decisions, and we are going to have to decrease our reliance on unsustainable energies. Once again, could the member tell us what the Conservative plan on climate change is?

139 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/3/24 8:38:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. We will see who is misleading Canadians. In my speech, I was very clear. I talked about the carbon tax. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has debunked the member's assertion about what people get back versus what they pay. Take into account the economic cost of the carbon tax, and that is what it is: a tax. Canadians pay far more than they get back. The member would have Canadians believe that somehow the government can put a tax on and then give more back to people than they pay, but Canadians are not buying this. It is not correct. It is misleading of the member to characterize it in those terms. Let us take this to Canadians. Let us have the carbon tax election, and we will see what Canadians have to say.

143 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/3/24 8:39:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always like hearing from the member. I have worked with him over the years. I am a little confused, though, by the Conservatives. They offered up the idea that there would be some money saved on gas, potentially, but the figures they used quoted driving about 44,000 kilometres. What they seem to be proposing is that there could be these savings if Canadians drove back and forth across Canada eight times over the course of the summer. That seems to me to be pretty excessive. I am not sure it would be a lot of fun for a family to be trapped in the car going right across Canada eight times, and that would be in a two-week period, to save a couple of hundred dollars. That being said, the NDP is offering substantial savings, thousands of dollars, in terms of pharmacare and thousands of dollars in terms of dental care. Many people in the member's riding are taking advantage of that. Why are the Conservatives not supporting the NDP in all these things that would actually make a real difference in the lives of his constituents.

193 words

Savings
Save

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/3/24 8:40:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is truly pathetic to see the House leader of the NDP literally reciting, verbatim, Liberal talking points. If the member would stop supporting the government, we could have a carbon tax election and could sort out where Canadians want to go.

44 words

Supporting

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Jun/3/24 8:40:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am actually going to ask my colleague the same question that he asked me. Why does he think that there seems to be this kind of attack toward families and not wanting to give them the opportunity to have a good time, basically to have fun?

49 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jun/3/24 8:41:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals reflexively blame Canadians for issues. They would literally say, as the Minister for Health said, that if a Canadian family wants to take their kids on a vacation, then it is all on them. It is their fault, and they are bad people for wanting to put the kids in the car to go on a road trip. They turn around and blame Canadians, using this inflammatory-type language about the planet being on fire. Conservatives just want parents to be able to take their kids on a road trip.

94 words

Blame

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Jun/3/24 8:41:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton. Today, we are discussing a motion that was passed in committee and sent over to the House. It is a report specifically on excess profit tax on large grocery companies. It states: Given that the Canadian grocery sector made more than $6 billion in profit in 2023 and that millions of Canadians have reported food insecurity in the last year, the Standing Committee on Finance call on the government to immediately take action by implementing an excess profit tax on large grocery companies that would put money back in the people's pocket with a GST rebate and establish a National School Food Program, and that this motion be reported to the House. My understanding, based on going back and looking at the committee minutes, is that this was supported by all the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members on the committee. I think it is a really good motion. I certainly agree with the motion, especially with the part on the national school food program. This is a program that has organically come from communities and from Canadians. I know I heard NDP members say earlier that this was their initiative. I actually do not think that it was. I think that this was an initiative that was born out of need, but also born out of what was already taking place in so many communities. In the city of Kingston, we have the Food Sharing Project, which has been around since the eighties. Basically, it is a volunteer organization led by Andy Mills in Kingston. Every day, its members pack up food and send it out to schools. One of the most interesting things that I found, and one of the reasons I thought this was an incredible program, was this. When I toured the program, I brought my children with me, Frankie and Vivian, who are seven and five. Frankie suddenly realized where the food was coming from that he would see in school. I really thought the program was unique. What made this program so incredibly successful, and why the government needed to fund this program, was because it helps to break down stigmas and stereotypes. According to my children, it is not just the “poor kids” who have access to this food. As a matter of fact, according to my daughter, who is in senior kindergarten, there are often discussions about which piece of food or which granola bar they are going to get from the special snack station. My point is that this is something that all kids look at and think is normal. It is not associated to or creating stereotypes that some kids need this food and others do not. I think that is incredibly powerful. At such an early age, children should be taught not to judge others based on their needs. That is why I supported this. That is why when people from my community came to see me to really push the federal government to put this program into this particular budget, it was something that I worked with them on. I barely did anything, but my constituents went to all the schools, collected petitions and garnered support. They gave those petitions to me so I could present them to the House. I imagine that similar things happened in communities throughout Canada. I really look at the national school food program as a grassroots program that has taken hold based on need, based on a desire to break down stereotypes, and based on treating all kids equally at such a young age. That is what we have. The other part of this motion speaks specifically to an excess profit tax. I have been asked many times by my NDP colleagues how I feel about an excess profit tax. On the surface level, I have nothing against it. In particular, when we are dealing with an industry that has very few players, effectively we have a joint monopoly or an oligopoly, and they are basically setting prices. The grocery industry has been found guilty in the past of fixing prices. We remember the bread-fixing scheme that went on a number of years ago. Whether it is out of malice and is intended, or whether it just grows out of the lack of competition, it still happens. Therefore, when we talk about an excess profit tax, and I know we talk about it from the oil industry perspective too, I am really intrigued by having the discussion, because I think it is one that is important to have, but I have a question and a concern. I tried to ask the House leader for the NDP a question, but he did not answer, about what happens when and if the oligopoly partners end up just transferring that tax over to consumers. If we have so few players in the industry, let us say there are three major players, Loblaws being one of them, and we add this tax on, what is to stop them from just marginally increasing everything again to cover the tax? Then we have not accomplished what we set out to do; we have not met the objective. Maybe there is an easy answer to this. Maybe the NDP would say that if we do a particular thing then it will prevent that from happening. That is what I was trying to understand earlier when I was asking the question. Maybe my concern can be put to rest very easily by addressing that point. Therefore, I want to have conversations about this excess profit tax on these large industries like the grocery and oil industries, but I want to do it in a responsible way. I want to do it in a way that ensures that whatever comes out of it actually produces the intended result, which is to return some of these excess profits created out of the monopolistic environment back to the consumers who are being taken advantage of in the practice of the monopoly or oligopoly. That is my main concern with respect to this. I would love to have a conversation about how the NDP would ensure that does not happen. On the surface, I certainly appreciate this. I understand that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc members all voted in favour of this. I think on a surface level it makes a lot of sense. There are some details that I would like to understand a little more clearly before I vote on this, but I will say that the national school food program is an incredible program that I know already works because I see a volunteer version of it at our local level and I know of the success it can create. I think it would help with food insecurity and with breaking down stereotypes. It will also give young children who are growing up the best shot at life and their educational experience if they are not going to school hungry. I find it very concerning that Conservatives, who will likely vote against this because of their connection to large companies, tend to raise the alarm bells on food bank usage, but then literally in the next action will not do anything to actually help people who are faced with food insecurity. With respect to the national school food program, before any money was even put behind it, when it was just a concept, they voted against it. They have indicated that they will vote against this budget, which includes money for that. It would be easy for them to separate out the items of the budget they do support and vote in favour of those, but they do not because it just seems that they are insistent on not doing anything that possibly could give this government a win. I will leave it at that. I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate on this and coming to a conclusion as to how I will vote when we are asked to vote on this, I presume tomorrow.

1357 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/3/24 8:51:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did answer my colleague's question. The reality is that if companies try to gouge again and pass those costs on to consumers, the excess profit tax kicks in. That is why, during the Second World War, the excess profit tax that was put into place as a tool at that time did not ignite or engender any passing on of those costs to consumers. It is the same principle, so I did answer his question. My question for the member is this. Given Conservatives are refusing even to participate, as they are not in the House, and are refusing to talk about the issue of school lunches—

112 words

The Speaker

Jun/3/24 8:52:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is an experienced member and knows that we should not make reference to the presence, or otherwise, of members in the House. Of course, they have many things to do.

33 words

Presence

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/3/24 8:52:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry. I should not mention that there is not a single Conservative here. That is true—

22 words

Sorry

SoVote

House Hansard - 323