44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/27/22 4:09:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have more a comment than a question. I learned long ago to never argue with a fool because they will never know when I am right.
The Liberal platform in 2019 spoke about a carbon tax that was going to be about $50 a tonne. Surprisingly, just a year after that, the Liberals announced that they were going to raise that up to $170 a tonne, which is almost a fivefold increase. At a time when Canadians can least afford it because of inflation and the affordability crisis, here they are raising carbon taxes again.
We are saying, give Canadians a break right now and give Canadians a break in the future from an affordability standpoint. Young people are neither fearful nor anxious. They are despondent right now, because they do not feel like they have hope for a prosperous future.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite.
Just this week, in our local newspaper in Barrie, the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank was talking about how much more use there is right now. She is even seeing that some people who have historically donated to the food bank are now coming in and using it. She lists some of the reasons. Obviously number one was the inflation rate, which people are finding tough, but she specifically mentioned the price of gas going up. That is causing concern to the organization and to people coming in.
What would you like me to go back and tell the executive director when we are talking about raising the carbon tax, which you seem to feel is fine going forward? I understand there is a climate situation, but these people are struggling out there, and I have to tell them if it is either going up a few more cents, as you say, or going up by three times, which is what I hear. Please tell me what I am supposed to go back and tell the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:26:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would tell constituents, number one, that there is a rebate for the price on pollution, whereby 80% of Canadians actually get back more money than they pay. I would also tell them that I am going to be voting in favour of Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Bill C-30 would literally put hundreds of dollars into the pockets of 11 million people to help combat inflation. I would tell them that when they take a look at Bill C-31, they will see a dental care plan so that those who have challenges with their financial needs will be able to get their children dental work. As opposed to having to pay for it, it would be claimed back.
Literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars are going back into the pockets of people to help them through this challenging time of inflation. That is what I would say.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:27:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.
The topic of the day is inflation. The Conservatives have their reasons for talking about the carbon tax.
Does my colleague agree that seniors are among those who are struggling most because of inflation? Does he agree that seniors are suffering the most because of inflation and that, more than anyone else, they have been abandoned by his government? My question is quite simple and straightforward.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:31:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Foothills. I always learn so much when he is on his feet.
I appreciate the opportunity to rise and debate today.
Make no mistake: Inflation is a very serious concern. Inflation, as we all know, leads to the Bank of Canada raising interest rates, and that creates a whole new number of very serious concerns. Yesterday, before I began writing this speech, I came across a tweet from the Bank of Canada that said, “The high cost of living is felt daily by everyone, particularly people with fixed incomes. To control #inflation, we need higher interest rates to bring it down. By moving quickly now, we can avoid even higher rates later on.”
I have spoken with many of my constituents at length about this issue and continue to hear almost daily from citizens about this serious concern. Based upon what I am hearing, parts of that tweet from the Bank of Canada simply are not accurate. When the Bank of Canada says, “The high cost of living is felt daily by everyone”, it is simply not true. Wealthy individuals, those who have no debt, have told me that while they are concerned, they themselves are not impacted at all. Some have even suggested they are coming out ahead, as their investments, in some cases, are now earning higher interest.
I do not bring this up to pick on the Bank of Canada, but the bank is naive in suggesting that we are all in this together when it comes to higher costs of living. This simply does not affect people with more wealth that way.
To the credit of the Bank of Canada, it does acknowledge that the higher cost of living does seriously impact those on fixed incomes, and that is absolutely true. However, there is another group of citizens the bank ignores, and it is those who carry debt with variable interest rates, also known as the working poor. To them, the higher costs of living are a serious concern. The only greater concern to them, and it is a much greater concern, is the higher interest rates from the Bank of Canada itself.
Last week, I heard from a household in Kelowna that now has to come up with an extra $900 a month to cover the higher interest rates on the mortgage payment. This is a family of four, and they do not have a spare $900 a month sitting around. Few working families do.
I should also point out that the Liberal stress test itself, in some cases, forces people to take a variable interest rate because they do not qualify for a fixed rate. People are often left to make a decision: Do they get into a variable mortgage rate on a house, which is often cheaper than renting? Then they find out that with the interest rates going up, they are barely hanging on.
What are they to do? They could try selling, although there is no guarantee that this would not leave them further in debt. Worse still, there is nothing they could rent for any less than what they are paying in a mortgage. They live in fear that the Bank of Canada will raise rates even further, and who can blame them for being fearful?
What does that situation have to do with our motion today? As the Bank of Canada says in the same tweet, “To control #inflation, we need higher interest rates to bring it down.” However, here is the thing. According to the Liberal government, as we have heard many times now, inflation has nothing to do with it. It is all related to supply chain problems outside of Canada, it claims. For higher gas prices, which we know is one of the stronger drivers of inflation, the Liberals blame Putin. If the Liberals are telling us the truth that all of this is due to factors outside of Canada, how does the Bank of Canada raising interest rates fix international supply chain problems or stop Putin? It does not, of course.
Let us all stop for a moment to ask an obvious question. Given that we have all witnessed how dramatically rising gas prices can drive inflation, is it not a reasonable question to ask what factors drive the price of gasoline that the Liberal government can actually do something about? It turns out we have an obvious answer here: the Liberal carbon tax. In fact, our very own Bank of Canada governor has written a letter on this to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. In that letter, he says, “According to the Bank’s calculations, if the charge were to be removed from the three main fuel components of the consumer price index (gasoline, natural gas and fuel oil) it would reduce the inflation rate by 0.4 percentage points.” Just so we are clear, the charge is the charge of the Liberal carbon tax.
There we have it in writing from the Bank of Canada. The carbon tax, at its current rate, adds almost half a percentage point to our inflation. As we know, the Liberal carbon tax is set to triple, even though the Liberals promised before the last election that they would not do that.
I can already hear the howls of outrage from some within the Liberal caucus: “But the rebates, the rebates will triple.” Here is the thing. The rebates, as I have concluded recently in this place in a different speech, may well help some to get ahead. As an example, for the finance minister living in Toronto without a car, she would likely come out a winner, but for people in my riding, living in a community such as Hedley, they will not be so lucky. Why? Because in Hedley there is no high school. There is no middle school. There is no hospital. There are no major grocery stores and few public transit options are available.
People in Hedley have two choices: drive west to Princeton or drive east to Keremeos. Sometimes they may have to drive to Penticton, which is even farther away. That same situation occurs for much of rural Canada.
Why should these people be punished with a carbon tax for living in a community that they can afford to live in? Why should someone be punished with a carbon tax for trying to heat their home in the cold winter months? People with older, poorly insulated homes that cost more to heat do get punished. Punished for what? In British Columbia, where we have Canada's oldest carbon tax, the emissions continue to rise, not unlike federally where the government has missed every single emissions target it has ever set.
In other words, we have a carbon tax that inflicts financial pain as it does not treat people equally. It does not actually reduce emissions, and the Bank of Canada confirms that it actually drives up inflation, which hurts everyone. These are facts that can be verified. Worse, our major trading partners, the United States and Mexico, do not have carbon taxes. The United States is supposed to come out with its own plan to fight climate change, but of course it is doing so with a focus on technological improvements and new standards, not a carbon tax. When the government says that any plan has to include a carbon tax to be taken seriously, how is this line of reasoning expected to be taken seriously when it comes to our largest trading partner, the United States, refusing to add an inflationary divisive measure like a carbon tax?
Why are energy companies like TC Energy focusing more on places in Mexico than their home country, particularly during a moment when the world is clearly in need of more energy, not less?
While North America has seen a drop in energy prices in recent months, one has to ask when the American strategic reserve, by law, has to start refilling. When demand from the American federal government and the American consumers start rippling through our integrated energy markets here in Canada, will we not have wished that we had done more work by Canadian companies and the government to secure our own energy security, rather than the reserves of other countries like the United States and Mexico?
It does not end there. The forestry companies that owned the last three lumber mills that shut down in B.C. did not leave forestry. They have opened three new lumber mills all in the United States where they will pay zero carbon taxes. They will also pay zero of the Liberals' increased payroll taxes as well, but that is a topic for a different debate.
Recently, at the end of August, one of the largest recreational boat builders closed shop in Kelowna. They moved their operations down to Texas and perhaps Mexico. Guess how much carbon tax they will pay there. The answer, of course, is zero.
To recap, it is true that there are some problems outside of our control in Canada but, make no mistake, we have families here right across this country who are barely hanging on and who cannot afford another interest rate hike from the Bank of Canada.
What if there is something else we could do to help the cost of living? There is something we can do and we can do it as soon as possible. Stop the government's plan to triple the carbon tax. This will do two things. It will help lower inflation. Also, it will help increase affordability. It is for these reasons I will be supporting this motion. If the government is not prepared to do those things for Canadians, so be it. However, the government should not pretend that all these challenges are from outside of Canada when indeed we do have a made-in-Canada solution, more so now as winter is coming.
I ask all hon. members to please consider voting in support of this motion. I would also like to pass on my thanks for listening to my comments here today on behalf of my constituents.
1714 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:42:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I am a little tired of hearing the same old story from the Conservatives. It is agonizing, like listening to a family member play an album with one terrible song over and over ad nauseam. Can we move on to something else?
One thing I know for sure is that the tax does not apply in Quebec, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said. People do not come up to me on the street to talk about the carbon tax. What they want is concrete measures to fight inflation.
I am a little discouraged by the Liberals, who are letting things unfold without really doing anything; by the Conservatives, who are challenging the Bank of Canada's independence while calling for more restrictive monetary policy; and by the New Democrats, who want to implement measures that would only make inflation worse.
In short, I am pretty proud to represent a political party that is the grown-up in the room, a party that has put forward concrete solutions to inflation, such as dealing with the labour shortage. That is what people want to talk about, and that is what can help fight inflation.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:44:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off well, pointing out that inflation does hit lower-income Canadians more than it hits higher-income Canadians, but he seems to forget that we are debating his party's motion here, which is about the carbon tax.
Right now, we have seen, in British Columbia, our home province, his and mine, that gas prices have increased about a dollar a litre this year. Two cents of that increase was from the carbon tax. The bulk of that increase was not from the price of oil. It was from greed. It was from big oil and gas companies seeing an opportunity and putting up the price of oil by a tremendous amount, fuelling inflation, and now he says that the federal government cannot do anything about that.
It can. It can put a windfall tax on those profits, those profits from greed, and take that money, billions of dollars, and distribute it in various ways to the people in Canada who are suffering now because of that rising cost of fuel.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:03:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating the obvious: Inflation is a real, serious problem. That is the first thing. Some people are even talking about a recession. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, estimates that we have a fifty-fifty chance of ending up in a recession. Back when he was a separatist, that very same François Legault said that if a slowdown or a recession were to happen, Quebec would be entirely dependent on Canadian federalism.
He was quite right, but I want to get back to the topic of inflation. In July, the price of goods and services in Canada rose 7.6% from a year earlier. In August, the consumer price index rose 7% year-over-year. Inflation slowed down a bit, but that was only because the cost of gas went down in August. I remind members that gas prices skyrocketed at the beginning of the summer. In August those prices dropped a little, as we recall. That is the only reason why inflation slowed down a bit.
Turning to the cost of food, the situation is serious. Food prices have increased by more than 10% annually, which disproportionately affects low-income households for an obvious reason. These households cannot just simply decide to cut other expenses to offset their higher grocery bills. That is very serious. It seems to me that any discussion about inflation should include a discussion about fighting poverty.
According to a recent poll, 56% of households report that they are financially unable to keep up with inflation. It is 41% for Quebec. Up to 80% of Canadian households and 70% of Quebec households report that they have had to cut spending because of the higher cost of living. Therefore, the situation is extremely serious.
I see that there is some movement behind me. It is not the subject matter that is making me laugh, but quite simply the indecisiveness of my colleagues behind me.
On September 7, the bank raised its key rate for the fifth time. It is now at 3.25%.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I have some terrible colleagues who have no sense of solidarity.
For consumers, this new increase in the key rate will lead to higher interest and mortgage rates—
391 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:06:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, wages are catching up with inflation. The labour shortage is forcing employers to increase wages in order to remain competitive and continue to attract employees. Wages are therefore catching up a bit in some respect.
However, the Government of Canada only started talking about it last month. There was nothing about it in last spring's budget, nor was there anything new in the speech given by the Deputy Prime Minister on June 16 at the Empire Club on Bay Street in Toronto.
We agree with the Conservatives that the Liberals are taking a laissez-faire approach—that is indeed a reality—but of course, we are not going to launch a childish campaign with a play on words using “inflation” and the Prime Minister's first name. However, we do not agree on the Conservatives' analysis of the cause and the solutions. This is where the problem lies.
Contrary to what the leader of the official opposition said when the member for Richmond—Arthabaska left the Conservative caucus, just because we do not agree with the Conservatives' solutions does not mean we are opposed to fighting inflation. Let us be clear about that.
The motion explicitly targets the carbon tax. This does not affect us in Quebec, because we have the carbon exchange system, which was created by a famous Conservative, none other than Jean Charest.
There is some question as to how this proposal will really help anyone or anything, apart from businesses operating in the oil and gas sector. The Conservatives' political interests may also be served. They are trying to get political mileage out of people's suffering. This summer, the recent jump in the price of crude oil greatly benefited businesses operating in the oil industry.
The motion is even based on an untruth, in that it attributes inaccurate statements to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He did not state that the carbon tax was currently causing a loss for 60% of households. Rather, he spoke of what might happen between 2030 and 2031 at a price of $170 per tonne. Furthermore, the tax remains progressive because of the refund. Lower-income families will see a net gain.
This is not to say that the carbon tax is not problematic, particularly when it comes to equity. Small and medium-sized businesses are subject to this tax, yet large carbon emitters are entitled to relief programs.
However, the issue of inflation cannot be reduced to simplistic, electioneering solutions that would have the additional effect of eating up significant parts of the government's budget.
That said, there are real solutions. If we are unable to single-handedly fight a global phenomenon through government policies alone, we can at least offer meaningful relief to its main victims, such as seniors or low-income earners, who need our support to increase their purchasing power. We cannot forget that, for the most part, our seniors do not work.
Why not reimburse them for the GST in the quarters when inflation exceeds the Bank of Canada's target? Or reimburse those feeling the pressure of rising gas prices, primarily farmers, taxi drivers and truckers?
There are so many opportunities for action, from tackling the labour shortage and restoring supply chains to housing, where governments can increase funding and redirect it from private developers to housing co-operatives and community associations. We could also talk about how important it is to amend legislation to promote competition because we know that monopolies result in higher prices.
If the Conservatives' motion included potential solutions to these issues, the Bloc Québécois certainly would have been very open to studying and debating them. Had they concocted a motion that, at the very least, identified the problems we just talked about as priority issues in the fight against inflation, we would have been happy to work with them, but there is nothing like that here.
I am sure no one will be surprised that there is one crucial aspect that the Conservatives left out of the motion. I am talking about the need to reduce our dependence on oil to build a more diversified economy. Since the very foundation of this country, Canada's economic development has been centred on the extraction of raw materials. This has been the pattern since the very beginning of Canada. Historically, the Canadian colonies specialized in bulk commodities, which, at the time, were raw materials for export. These products did not require much processing in a market that was in large part dictated by international trade.
The consequences can be even greater if this sector starts struggling as well, as a result of the depletion of resources or fluctuations in the price of a barrel, for example. The price of oil is chronically unstable. It is so known for its tendency to increase suddenly and drastically that most measures of inflation do not factor in energy. Since the cost of oil is essentially tied to the London and New York stock exchanges, there is little that can be done to mitigate the fluctuations and price hikes.
Today we are paying the price for the unwavering support that Ottawa, the banks and the pension funds give to the Canadian oil and gas sector. The pension funds have increased their investments in this sector. The pensions of Canadians and Quebeckers are in jeopardy because they are dependent on oil fluctuations. That is not really a winning strategy. Just look at the share of foreign investment in Canadian oil. It has steadily declined over the past few years, meaning there are very few royalties to be had. For example, shale oil development is a very bad business proposition, and yet Canada cannot seem to escape it.
One of Canada's biggest disappointments is definitely that in the global marketplace, in the midst of this great geopolitical struggle, Canada is ultimately a minor player with basically no influence. It is easy to see the problems that come from putting all our eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is the oil sector. The problem is that it is really tough to get out of oil. When the price is high, investments pour in, and when the price is low, individuals and companies consume more. In other words, it is a lose-lose situation.
We wish we were debating a motion that dismantled deep-seated prejudices instead of relying on them to score political points. For now, this motion is not even worth a bitcoin.
1096 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, through you, I wish to give virtual greetings to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
We are seeing higher inflation rates and higher costs of living around the world as a result of many factors, which include the war in Ukraine; global supply chain bottlenecks, in large part due to the pandemic; and, global energy market uncertainty. That being said, inflation in Canada, at 7%, has slowed and is now more than one percentage point below its June peak; moreover, it is lower here than among many of our peers, such as the United States at 8.3%, United Kingdom at 9.9% and Germany at 7.9%.
Elevated inflation is not a unique Canadian problem, but we are uniquely positioned to deal with it. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a AAA credit rating, and according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada will have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 both this year and next. This means we can build a comprehensive affordability plan for Canadians while continuing to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Our affordability plan is a suite of targeted inflation-relief measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support for those Canadians who need it the most. This is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. We know that the pandemic has been a major shock to the economic livelihoods of Canadians and Canadian businesses, and we know that recent global events have pushed us even further. It is important that we address these challenges while not adding further fuel to the inflationary fire.
Let us be absolutely clear. The suite of measures that comprise our affordability plan will support Canadians without increasing inflation. Many economists, including the former deputy parliamentary budget office, University of Calgary's Lindsay Tedds and Alberta economist Trevor Tombe, have all agreed that this support package for Canadians is non-inflationary.
Let us now turn to fighting climate change and our national price on pollution. First, fighting climate change is an absolute necessity for the future of our planet, and let us also acknowledge that the effects of climate change are also an inflationary pressure on our economy. It is well known that having a national price on pollution is a highly effective market mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while making life more affordable for the majority of Canadians.
Through debates all this session, Conservatives have tried to correlate the massive increase in the price of gas with the federal carbon price. This is simply not true. In 2019, the carbon price was approximately nine cents per litre in British Columbia. Today, it is 11¢ per litre. That means that although gas prices have increased by more than a dollar per litre, only two cents of that increase can be attributed to the price of pollution in B.C. over the last three years. Further to that, because the carbon price in British Columbia is provincially administered, if the federal carbon price were eliminated, as the Conservatives are suggesting and the member opposite is suggesting, this would result in zero savings for residents of British Columbia. Instead, it would simply mean that other jurisdictions, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, would do less to fight climate change.
In jurisdictions like Alberta and Saskatchewan where the federal carbon price is in place, it is important to know that approximately 90% of directed proceeds are directly returned to residents and that the fee is revenue neutral to the federal government. Further, with the climate action incentive, carbon pricing actually makes life more affordable for 80% of Canadian households.
I hope that the member opposite will share this information with his colleagues and convince his caucus to go back to supporting carbon pricing, as those members previously did, less than 12 months ago.
650 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:29:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government does understand that Canadians are feeling the effects of elevated inflation. They feel it particularly at the gas pump and when they reach for items at the grocery store. I would encourage all Canadians to read or listen to my previous speech to fully understand the Liberal plan to fight inflation, to make life more affordable and to grow an economy that works for everyone. Canadians can count on us to continue supporting them through this inflationary crisis while remaining prudent fiscal managers.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
