- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/4/24 4:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have talked a great deal about trying to establish food stability in terms of prices. It is interesting when we look at the G7 countries today, in terms of the graphs. We find that the highest is Germany, followed by the United Kingdom and France. France is the country that is often cited by the New Democrats. Next is Italy and then comes Canada. The lowest two are the United States and Japan. Again, we fluctuate within that graph.
The concern I have is that, first, we need to achieve stabilization and to look at ways in which we can keep down food prices as much as we can. Having said that, the New Democrats are implying that we should be looking at putting in a price cap. Is the member concerned about the issue of supply and the impact it would have on the producers?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 3:55:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, does the member have any concerns at all with regard to the government applying a price cap, as she is suggesting? Is there another country in the G20 doing this? I understand that France might be. I do not quite understand France.
Could the member provide any evidence of any G20 country that actually has some sort of a price cap that has been demonstrated to be effective and has not negatively impacted supply?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 1:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts with respect to instituting a price cap and how that would help the constituents who she represents or northern residents of Canada, generally speaking. Could she give some sort of an indication on whether she believes there would be any consequence to having a price cap?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 12:04:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect the issue of caps has a lot to do with the supply end and with the end result. My question to the member is in regard to the idea of enhanced competition. We did have six large grocery companies. Shoppers was the last one that folded into Loblaw. In part, that sent a very strong message in itself, and it was one reason we had to change and to modernize the Competition Act.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the important role that the Competition Act and the commission play in ensuring that there is stability in prices.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:59:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, contrary to what the opposition member just said, the State of California does have a price on pollution. However, that is not the question I have for the member.
At the end of the day, we take a look at the cost factors, inflation rates and the impact that these things have on society. We want to see food prices stabilized. Ultimately, people need to have comfort in knowing that the government is acting on their behalf.
We brought in the Competition Act, which the member made reference to; this is one way in which we can ensure that we are having more stabilization of food prices. Could he just expand on why it was important to make changes to the Competition Act?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:26:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that Canadians, as a whole, recognize the principle that the polluters need to pay. The government has recognized this and, ultimately, moving in very significant ways, has put a price on pollution. Today, it is oriented. We continued to go in the right direction on that matter in all aspects.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:11:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to the important issue of a price on pollution and the carbon rebate.
I want to take a bit of a different angle on just how isolated the Conservative Party of Canada is today. When we look at the issue of a price on pollution, we will find it actually originates in 2015 in Paris, where the world came together and said not only that climate is change real but also that we need to take a policy direction around the world to try to limit the amount of emissions and ultimately reduce them so we would have a better environment worldwide.
What we have witnessed over the years is a high level of participation from countries around the world. For example, the European Union, which is made up of many different countries, including France, Italy and so many others, came up with the green deal, which in essence is about a price on pollution. We can also look at countries like Ireland, England and Mexico. We often say that the United States does not have a price on pollution, but that is not quite accurate because there are many American states that do.
Not only does Canada have a national price on pollution, but the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec also have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons today, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party are in favour of a price on pollution. We used to have a Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, who was in favour of a price on pollution. Then we have to factor in where the Conservative Party is today. The Conservatives have isolated themselves to say that they do not support a price on pollution, even though under their former leader Erin O'Toole, in that policy platform, all the Conservatives, including the current leader, advanced, promoted and encouraged a price on pollution. It is in their platform.
What we have witnessed since the new leader was minted not that long ago is that the far right element of the Conservative Party has taken control. The whole idea of the MAGA Conservatives has taken control through the leadership of the Conservative Party today. Because of that, Conservatives have changed their mind. They now say they are not in favour of a price on pollution. The world is changing and is recognizing the importance of a sound policy decision, but an irresponsible Conservative Party today is saying no to a price on pollution.
England today is saying to countries around that world that if they are going to be exporting products to England and do not have a mechanism for a price on pollution, they are going to have to pay additional fees on that merchandise going into England. That is something it is acting on and is going to be putting into place. What does the Conservative Party really think about a price on pollution and the impact that will have on trade?
We saw that with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, where Conservatives were prepared to use it as their sole issue as part of the rationale for opposing the Canada-Ukraine agreement, because there was reference to a price on pollution. It was not always their sole issue but was their second issue. If we think about it, Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Ukraine wants to be able to have a formal trade agreement with the European Union, which also has a price on pollution.
However, the Conservative leadership and the members across the way have closed their eyes like an ostrich, put their head in the sand and do not recognize good, sound policy. I can say that is not in the best interest of Canadians, just like it was not in the best interest of Canadians when the Conservative Party voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That is the reality. The statements and the policy direction of the Conservative Party, with the far right element, is to the detriment of good, sound public policy, which is going to be there for future generations of Canadians and others. Canada needs things such as trade agreements. We need international trade; that is a good thing.
The rest of the world is recognizing that the environment matters and that the price on pollution is an effective tool, but we have the leader of the official opposition going around saying he is going to get rid of the price on pollution. How backward-thinking is that when we contrast it to what the rest of the world is doing? That is not responsible public policy-making.
Instead, the Conservatives are more focused on developing a bumper sticker that they believe is going to get them votes. They believe they are going to be able to fool Canadians. That is the bottom line. They have no faith in Canadians' understanding the reality; we see that in what they are telling Canadians.
The question I had earlier today for the leader of the official opposition was this: Why does the Conservative Party not participate in political panels on CTV or CBC? Canadians still view those networks.
One member is saying, “No, they do not.”
Mr. Speaker, CTV and CBC would argue differently, and so would I. I think CTV and CBC have played a very important part in public debate for generations. The leader of the Conservative Party says they are state-operated organizations. How ridiculously stupid is it to make that sort of assertion? The leader says it not only here in the House; he says it outside the House also as he chooses to avoid true accountability on some of the stupid things he is saying, things that are absolutely misleading.
He will go to the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec and try to give the false impression that they have the same sort of carbon taxing system as Manitoba, Atlantic Canada, Alberta and others have. That is just not true. He tries to tell people in the provinces where there is a carbon tax, a federal backstop of a carbon tax, that they are paying far more into the carbon tax system than they are receiving.
Again, we have said very clearly, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out by his specific example, that a vast majority of people actually receive more money back from the rebate than they pay through carbon tax on gas and heating their homes. That is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear. Over 80% of people will receive more dollars back than they will put directly into the carbon tax. That is indisputable. Members of all political parties, except for the Conservatives, are acknowledging that.
What does that mean? When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to axe the tax, it also means he is going to get rid of the rebates. When Conservatives talk about getting rid of the rebates, they are telling well over 80% of my constituents that they will have less disposal income because of that particular action. I find disgraceful what the leader of the official opposition is spreading across the country.
1229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 10:55:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, issues of this nature are of great importance. No matter where one lives in Canada, there is a great deal of sympathy and appreciation for the cost of living in northern Canada.
Back in the days when I was an MLA, I recall bringing forward legislation on milk, because of the cost of milk in northern Manitoba and the fact that cola products were far more cheaper. Although my bill never passed, it at least made a point. As much as possible, we do not want products that we consume on a daily basis and take for granted to become so expensive in northern Canada. Often, it is not even a question of price; it is a question of availability. In our cities, we have come to accept that when we walk into a grocery store many products will be available to us, but that is not the case in northern Canada.
How many speeches have we heard, not only today but in the past, about competition? We often talk about the importance of competition, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, smaller communities in between, Halifax, virtually throughout the country. One reason we talk about competition is because through competition we get better selection, better prices and so forth. Those same principles do not apply to northern Canada.
In northern Canada, one grocery chain covers the Far North. How does that provide for a competitive price regime? A whole lot more with respect to getting the products up north needs to be taken into consideration.
I have weekly discussions in my constituency at a local restaurant. I recall one individual from the University of Manitoba. He has talked about airships for years and has gained quite a bit of support for the role airships could play in providing additional competition and resources to northern Canada. There is now a great deal of talk about how, maybe even in a community like Thompson, airships could get engaged in providing services further north to ensure there is healthier competition and choice of product.
We need to look at ways to ensure there is more food security, more choice and, obviously, a better price point on products that people living in the north need day in and day out. I think the vast majority of Canadians understand the issue and would like more done on that file. The government has moved forward significantly on reconciliation.
Before I get into more details on that, I want to highlight something that took place yesterday and we are witnessing it again today. Members in the House were anticipating that we would be talking about child care, as it is an item on today's agenda.
It is somewhat disappointing, given the very nature of the debates we have been having over the last couple of days, that the Conservative Party has chosen to talk about this issue, without giving any notice whatsoever to members outside of their own caucus. We have a Conservative opposition that wants to highlight a particular issue, yet it does not tell anyone what it wants to debate. That does put some limitations on the debate. I know others who would have liked to contribute to the debate and who maybe have not been afforded the opportunity because of availability, other agenda items and so forth.
If this issue is so important to the Conservative Party, why would it not have brought in an opposition day motion related to the report? It is interesting, the member who spoke previously talked about the nutrition north program. He even indicated in his comments that the government has been constantly increasing the financial resources for the program. We even have members of the Conservative Party making reference to the fact that the government has continued to increase the funding.
A number of issues could have been raised on an opposition day, because then everyone would have had the appropriate notice and time, and specific members who would like to address the issue would be in a better position to do so. We could actually come back with hard numbers, in terms of what has actually been invested in that program.
There are numerous departments that deal with indigenous leaders and communities of the north. I would argue that the Conservatives have done a disservice in two ways. First, they are underestimating the importance of this very issue, by the manner in which they have brought it forward. It is disrespectful to the issue they want to debate. Second, at the same time, they have prevented a debate that members of this House were anticipating from occurring, that being child care.
I made reference to the fact that yesterday we were talking about processes and what takes place on the floor of the House of Commons. The Conservatives were complaining that they would actually have to sit beyond 6:00 p.m. in order to debate government agenda items. They did not want to sit late in the evenings. I argued that we needed the time to have those debates, because of the games that were played by the Conservatives, bringing in concurrence reports in order to prevent debate on government legislation.
I highlighted that yesterday. I have raised that issue before. Once again, we see the Conservative Party playing a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Conservatives are saying that they do not want to talk about child care here today, even though that is what we were supposed to be talking about. Then they took an issue that is so serious and, without any notice to other members, brought it forward.
I am going to wind up my remarks, because I do want to get to debate. I will highlight one thing. I think of the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, Infrastructure Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, not to mention the many different indigenous groups that want to participate in the discussion. The Conservatives took this opportunity to, in essence, mock the issue and take advantage of an issue in order to prevent the government agenda of dealing with child care, and that is an area that needs to be debated.
The legislation needs to be passed, and that is the reason I would move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
1096 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 6:00:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed having exchanges with the leader of the Green Party. I know she gives a great deal of thought to her presentations and, ultimately, her questions. I think some questions are a little easier to answer than others.
We have a Prime Minister and through the Prime Minister a Minister of Finance, our Deputy Prime Minister, who have taken the issue very seriously. I do not need to tell the House, because everyone knows, of the ethnic heritage of our Minister of Finance and how she really does have an appreciation of what is taking place in Ukraine today and the impact that oil is having in supporting Russia.
I do agree with the leader of the Green Party when she talks about the misconception of the price on pollution as being the sole source of the exorbitant prices that people are having to pay for gas. It is something that is not necessarily new. She put a great deal of emphasis on, today in particular, the war. There is no doubt that it has had a significant impact.
I would suggest that excess profits is something that has been ongoing. Governments in the past have tried to deal with it, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. We have seen regulations in different provinces, both in Atlantic Canada and out west, where there have been attempts to deal with some of the excess profits. At the national level, standing committees have attempted to deal with it.
I understand that the leader of the Green Party is saying to just have an excess profits tax imposed. I do not fully understand how that works, to be honest. What I do know is that the Minister of Finance has been very open in terms of listening to arguments, in particular those that have come out of the pandemic, with regard to the huge amount of profits in different sectors.
I am thinking of the financial area, where we have put in some specific taxes on companies where there was extreme wealth. I do not know to what degree there is a willingness to do something today on that front. I do believe that there is a great deal of discussion taking place. I think that we also have to factor in other elements of the debates. At the end of the day, I do not think anything is off the table, per se. Some might take a little longer to move forward.
The cost of fossil fuels, as I indicated, has been a frustration of mine for many years. In fact, shortly after getting elected in 2010, I had a presser that talked about the price of gas and the collusion that was taking place that led to excess profits. Maybe one of the ways we can deal with that is to enhance competition or boycott one particular station until it lowers the price of a litre of gasoline to a certain level. I think that consumers are frustrated. I am really encouraged that in Winnipeg we have a new gas company, 204 Fuel's, which has provided a great deal of competition. I can say that where that gas station exists, the price of gas has actually been going down; its price is consistently lower than everyone else's.
557 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
