44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- 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 5:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to hear my colleague speak of rare disagreements between members of the Bloc Québécois and members of the Conservative Party. It seems to me that we do indeed have disagreements and that they are numerous. That, by the way, is part of democracy. As to the worship of oil in Canada, there seems to be a non-Quebec cross-party consensus in the House. That said, we have a system in Quebec that works well and that we are very satisfied with. It is the carbon exchange.
If I must comment, I would say that this tax is imperfect, as I said earlier. In fact, small and medium-sized businesses are—
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
