44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/27/22 10:31:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the centre of my economic plan is to make government affordable so that life is affordable. The reality is that the cost of government has driven up the cost of living. The half-trillion dollars of inflationary deficits have meant more dollars bidding up the price of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes have driven up those costs further.
The Canadian dollar is and will always be our only national currency. It will be the only currency with which we ever do government business, pay taxes or receive benefits from the government. The problem here today is that this government has been ruining the purchasing power of that dollar by printing cash through inflationary deficits. It has given us a 40-year-high in inflation, which I predicted and warned this government would happen. I will make sure it never happens again.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 10:42:42 a.m.
- Watch
The new Leader of the Opposition said just last week that the proposed investments in our affordability plan, which would double the GST tax credit, get dental care for those who cannot afford it and provide direct payments to Canadians having trouble paying the rent, were all akin to printing cash. I guess that was before members of his own party flip-flopped on their position and finally, albeit reluctantly, decided to support our proposed GST tax rebate, which will support 11 million Canadians.
Let us be absolutely clear. The suite of measures in our affordability plan will support Canadians with the rising cost of living without adding fuel to the fire of inflation. Members do not need to take my word for it. The former deputy parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Askari, the University of Calgary's Lindsay Tedds and Alberta economist Trevor Tombe have all pointed out that this support we have proposed to this House will not have an inflationary effect. Why not? It is because it is specific and targeted.
Our plan offers targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the people who need it most, with particular emphasis on lower-income Canadians, who are most exposed to inflation. Obviously, our ability to spend is limited. That was true when interest rates were at a historic low in 2020, and it is certainly true today.
That is why we continue to act with prudence. Today, we have the lowest net debt and the lowest deficit in the G7. We still have a AAA credit rating. Our goal is to balance fiscal responsibility with the government's responsibility to come to the aid of the most vulnerable Canadians. That has always been our approach.
Thanks to the investments our government has made over the past two years, many of the measures in our affordability plan are already in place to help Canadians.
I would be more than happy to spend the time I have remaining going through the details of our affordability plan and how we will support Canadians through this challenging economic time. However, that is not really what the Conservatives would like to speak about. The Conservative motion, in fact, does not even mention affordability, not once. No, this is a motion against climate action, pure and simple, less than 48 hours after hurricane Fiona touched down in Atlantic Canada.
What the motion from the Leader of the Opposition essentially says is that now is the time to give up in the fight against the climate crisis, although, to be fair, it is not as if my colleagues opposite ever really started. They are still too busy arguing among themselves as to whether climate change is even real.
Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; it is an economic necessity. All around the world, governments are investing in a green transition. Our most important trading partners, the United States and the European Union, are all putting serious climate measures into action now.
These are our clients. These are our markets. Without the innovation born out of and encouraged by a robust price on pollution, Canada has no future in the new global economy. Importantly, Canada’s national price on pollution does not make life any less affordable for the vast majority of Canadians. It is unfortunate the Conservative Party continues to spin this false narrative about Canada’s price on pollution while having actually no plan for themselves to tackle climate change.
Once again, the Conservatives are taking aim at the price on pollution. That is not surprising, coming from a party that is still torn over whether climate change is real. Our government sees what is happening, and we are taking action.
Clearly, if the Conservatives were in power, there would be no targets and no talk of achieving net zero. Rather, they would be talking about the oil-based economy and ignoring our vulnerable seniors, low-income workers and struggling families. The Conservatives believe that the federal government should not do anything to tackle the climate crisis or to help Canadians face economic challenges.
Despite our Conservative colleagues' indifference, our government is focusing on making life more affordable for Canadians by urgently investing in a just green transition.
Canadians understand that we must act to stem the climate emergency and reduce our emissions. It is an environmental and economic imperative, and yet the Conservatives continue to attack a policy that is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive innovation at the same time.
In fact, last Thursday, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes described the federal price on pollution as “some kind of weird Ponzi scheme the government has cooked up.”
For the benefit of my Conservative colleague, I do want to remind the House of the definition of a Ponzi scheme, which is “a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return which generates returns for earlier investors with money taken from later investors.”
Putting to one side, for the purposes of this debate, the fact that accusing the government of engaging in fraudulent activities is certainly stretching the boundaries of parliamentary language, that the Conservatives believe that putting a price on pollution is a fraudulent scam is incredibly uninformed and also very telling.
The Conservatives have consistently shirked away from the fight against climate change and this first opposition motion from their new leader shows us that we should just expect more of the same.
Interestingly, though, this motion does not call for an end to the price on pollution, or carbon tax, if members prefer to call it that. The Conservatives now appear to want to keep the carbon tax in place, just not to have it increase.
To be clear, because we have heard a lot of numbers this morning, this price on pollution is going up by 3¢ in April, not tomorrow, not this year but next year.
In fact, this first opposition motion is an attempt to change the channel. It is an attempt to change the channel away from the responsible and the needed affordability plan that we have presented. It is a way to change the channel from the legislation before the House that will provide a tax rebate to Canadians.
The Conservatives are busy lining up speakers on debate. The Conservatives are busy trying to block the passage of our affordability plan, which will put money back into the pockets of Canadians now, not in six months from now, not next year. The affordability plan that we have put forward will put money back into pockets of Canadians now and the Conservatives are blocking it.
As the Conservatives come to grips with the debate and the reality of the climate crisis, our government is committed to and focused on supporting Canadians feeling the effects of global inflation. That is our priority.
1159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 2:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford to pay for the government's reckless inflationary spending and deficits. The government's planned tax hikes will drive up the cost of living and will affect rural Canadians, low-income families and vulnerable populations the most. The government is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Canadians.
I ask my question again. Will the government end its planned tax increases on gas, home heating and groceries?
73 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 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
