44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 5, 2022 02:00PM
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:22:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the second request for unanimous consent. I move:
That, notwithstanding paragraph (e) of the order made Monday, May 2, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit to Parliament a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be no later than Friday, February 17, 2023, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:23:14 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:23:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I suspect if you were to canvas the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it the appropriate time to begin Private Members' Business.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:23:44 p.m.
- Watch
I believe we are there anyway, so I thank the member for that intervention.
It being 6:23 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss Bill C‑253, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, including the Auditor General Act. This bill seeks to ensure that the Auditor General of Canada and the auditor for the Bank of Canada have access to the Bank of Canada's operations.
Basically, as the member for Carleton and others have suggested, this means that the Auditor General could conduct an audit of the money spent during the pandemic, for example, which actually came from money printing by the Bank of Canada. Essentially, the idea is to examine and evaluate Canadian monetary policy through an audit by the Auditor General.
Since the Bloc Québécois will always respect Canadian institutions as long as Quebec is part of Canada, it should come as no surprise that we believe that the Bank of Canada should be totally independent.
In my speech, I would like to add some qualifications to the Conservative Party's comments and also recall the importance of the Bank of Canada's independence.
First, I would like to clarify some of the comments made by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the sponsor of the bill. He said that the Bank of Canada is exempt from the Auditor General's oversight. I would like to qualify that. The Auditor General can review the bank's operations and records related to its roles as the government's fiscal agent, advisor on public debt management, and manager of the exchange fund account.
I will start by saying that the Auditor General has access to a study on the structure of the Bank of Canada, the review of audits, certain records and so on. It is not the Auditor General's role to assess the quality of a policy, let alone the quality of monetary policy. It is very important to make that clear.
Moreover, control measures are already in place for the Bank of Canada. I would like to list a few of them. Under the Bank of Canada Act, once a year, two independent firms are to audit the affairs of the bank simultaneously. The Minister of Finance has the authority to enlarge or extend the scope of the audit and to request special audits and reports.
The point is, the Bank of Canada already has an accountability process; it is accountable to the government. The Bank of Canada also reports to the committee, and it is up to the committee to determine whether certain monetary policies are appropriate.
I happened to be there when the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. Committees can call Bank of Canada governors and deputy governors to appear. They can review the bank's books and make recommendations in that respect. Committees can oversee internal and external audits. Lastly, they can review the adequacy of the bank's risk management, internal control and governance framework and its information communication.
Clearly, the Bank of Canada already has an accountability process.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle also suggested we should follow the example of our Commonwealth partners, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.
Taking a look at what is done in some of those countries, we note that the auditor general of New Zealand can indeed audit the central bank. However, the AG's role is to ensure that the financial statements are accurate and free of any errors. It is explicitly stated in the constraints placed on the auditor general that he or she cannot comment on the efficiency of the central bank.
In Australia, the auditor general's objectives are to obtain reasonable assurances that the financial statements taken as a whole are free from significant anomalies, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report to confirm that.
Once again, in these countries, whose example we should supposedly follow, the auditor general has no mandate to audit monetary policy.
Things are a bit more complicated in the United Kingdom. We recognize that. The auditor general examines whether the Bank of England has a sufficiently ambitious strategy to develop appropriate efficient and cost-effective central services to help the bank deliver change and control costs.
Once again, there is agreement that the auditor general does not make findings about the strategic objectives of the central bank. Consequently, an audit of a monetary policy would not be acceptable in any of these Commonwealth countries. There is no mention of issuing an opinion or criticizing a monetary policy. In short, in these three countries, the auditor general can audit the administrative integrity of the central bank, but not the effectiveness of its monetary policy.
The Bloc Québécois does not oppose the idea of increasing accountability. On the contrary, it is something we frequently ask for and we are quite in favour of the idea of asking the central bank good questions especially at committee. However, the Bloc is opposed to this bill because it does not use the right means to attain its objective, which is to evaluate a monetary policy by having the Auditor General conduct an audit. That is not her function, nor is it the place for her to carry it out.
I would now like to focus on the importance of the central bank's independence. I would never venture an opinion on monetary policy even if I were an economist. It is a very complex exercise that must be very nuanced. That is also the case for the independence of central banks. I would remind members that a central bank uses monetary policy to help establish price levels, for example. It has an impact on the level of employment in an economy. The central bank has a major impact on our economy.
That said, the medium- and long-term stability objectives of a central bank are completely different from the objectives of a government that is elected for a maximum of four years. A government's objectives are short-term, in some cases more than others. Long-term stability is a different objective, and that is why a central bank must be completely independent from a government. The two have different objectives. One is aiming for long-term economic stability, while the other is likely to develop a budgetary policy that is shorter term.
For example, when a central bank increases its key policy interest rate, that will affect the economy about 18 to 24 months later. I would remind members that we have a minority government with a potential lifespan of two more years. Therefore, at no time would the two objectives coincide. Developing a budgetary policy is completely different from developing a monetary policy, and that is why the central bank must remain independent. Without that independence, a government might choose a short-term monetary policy that is to its advantage, but that is not optimal in the long term.
Central bank independence falls within a wide spectrum. There are as many degrees of central bank independence as there are central banks. However, I would like to talk about the good practices developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says, “Central banks hold considerable power in their countries' economies [as we know]. While their mandates vary, they generally aim to create the conditions for economic and financial stability. Their most important tools are monetary policies, which are decisions about the value of money. These include decisions about the amount of money in the economy and ways to keep inflation stable.”
We agree that the central bank plays a tremendous role in keeping inflation stable and we agree that inflation is too high at the moment. The central bank set out to keep inflation at 2% and it had and agreement with the government on that. However, we know that the causes of inflation are much more complex than a monetary policy. In this case, there is indeed a shortage of labour, materials and semi-conductors. There are global supply chain problems. No central bank has managed to truly address the problem of inflation.
In conclusion, I would like to cite my favourite economist, in other words my father. He says that a monetary policy is as complex as medicine. Economists are a bit like doctors. The difference is that doctors have seven billion patients to test a drug or new method on, while economists have just one economy.
The central bank may make mistakes. It is the role of committees to look at its mistakes and ask questions. It is not for the Auditor General to do that. Independent institutions make for a healthy democracy.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise at any point in the House of Commons. It is such an honour to be here. Today, specifically, we are talking about the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's private member's business, which is called the Bank of Canada accountability act.
I am a little confused about this bill, to be honest. I read it through and looked at the reality and cannot quite understand why the member would pick this particular pathway to express his concerns about the country.
I think of some of the private member's bills that I have tabled. I am really focused on things like the right to housing and making sure that seniors get their guaranteed income supplement, even if they get their taxes done a little late. For me, people really matter. I know that the member would argue that this is about accountability, because it intends to have the Auditor General audit the Bank of Canada. I will get to that a little, but when I look at the role of the Auditor General, there is some significant and important work that is done in the country by that role.
The first thing that it made me think about is that, earlier this year, the Auditor General of Canada presented a report called “Processing Disability Benefits for Veterans” and I found that report to be incredibly helpful. The purpose of this report by the AG was to measure if Veterans Affairs Canada, or VAC, as it is called, is taking steps to reduce the wait times for disability benefits. If anybody has been paying attention to the House, we have heard, for numerous years, that many veterans in the country are applying for their disability benefit and they are waiting far too long. It is having a profoundly negative impact on the veteran and on the people who love them most.
If we are going to look at how how we hold departments accountable, the Auditor General does important work. This is a perfect example of it. The report said that veterans are still waiting too long for their compensation and that veterans are still waiting to get the benefits that they need just to get through everyday life.
I hear this a lot. I hear this from veterans across the country, who contact my office and let me know that they are still waiting. I also get calls from the loved ones of veterans, who are worried because the veteran that they love and hold dear is struggling profoundly because they do not have those supports.
I think that this is an important conversation for the House, because it often feels like veterans serve this country and just get nothing back. The fact that they have to wait so long takes away from that commitment and sacrifice that they made, and the value of it to this country. That is something that I hope all parliamentarians are hearing from the veterans in their riding and that they are standing up for them in this place.
What the AG found was that the median waiting time was 39 weeks. Imagine that: Someone is a veteran, they served the country, they have a disability based on that service, and they are waiting around 39 weeks for a decision to be made. Their family is waiting. The people and their loved ones who are surrounding them are caring for them and they are not able to get the supports that they need to be better, to be stronger, to take the next step in their own evolution.
The other thing that the AG pointed out is that VAC's data is so poor that it does not allow the department to realize or understand if the initiatives that they are taking are actually making an impact. That concerns me greatly and I am really glad that the Auditor General was able to put that into a report.
We need to be looking at VAC and saying that it is time for it to figure out how to gather data so that we know that, when it does something, it is actually working. At the end of the day, it is the veteran who matters. It is the people who love that veteran who matter. We want to see those application processes speed up but if we are not collecting the right information, we cannot verify if that is the truth.
Finally, the AG pointed out that the department does not have a long-term strategy in terms of staffing. I just want to say how concerning that is.
We all know, because we have heard it from our communities, from businesses and small businesses, that people are just trying to figure out how to find enough staff to do the things they need. It is getting increasingly harder to find people, because we have a population of retirees who are leaving. We do not have enough immigration, because we had a couple of years during COVID where we could not have people coming into the country. Staffing is just becoming incredibly hard.
To find out that Veterans Affairs does not have a strategy on how it is going to make sure it has enough staff to serve the people who served this country is shocking, so I thank the AG for doing this work and for this report because it tells us important things. Most importantly, it keeps that department accountable, accountable to all Canadians, Canadians who want to know that the veterans who served this country are being served well on the other side.
The bill that we are looking at today, in my opinion, is simply not useful. The Bank of Canada already undergoes two external audits simultaneously by two separate firms. By the way, the Auditor General also has the authority to audit certain aspects of the Bank of Canada's affairs under the Financial Administration Act, so there is already a component that can be looked at.
My concern is that the Auditor General is being asked to do more and more without the resources to be able to do it, without having the resources to make sure that the incredible people who work in that department are paid properly, looked after and can take on this level of accountability. We know, funnily enough, that the Conservatives cut funding to the Auditor General, so I find it interesting that when they were in government they cut the funding, but when they are over here on the opposition side they are asking the Auditor General to do more work without any more resources.
I appreciate accountability. I will always fight for more accountability and transparency, but this bill does not promise that. It also asks an already overworked department to do things it does not have the capacity to do and that do not make any sense. Hopefully, we will see something that comes forward soon from this member that actually thinks about the needs of the people in this country.
1183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening to speak to Bill C-253. I will try to summarize it for the people who are watching and listening. This is a bill designed to make the Bank of Canada, that is, the central bank, accountable to the Office of the Auditor General. It is no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. I will explain why.
As we know, the bill introduced by the Conservative member for Regina—Qu'Appelle talks a lot about inflation. They want to find the villains who are responsible for inflation. I am going to talk about who, or rather what, is responsible for inflation. I will also propose concrete solutions.
What we need to understand about Bill C‑253 is that there are already accountability mechanisms in the Bank of Canada Act, and asking the Auditor General to do it is not the right way to go about it, precisely because the Bank of Canada must remain independent of any political influence. Also, of course, there is the fact that we must not interfere in monetary policy, despite what some of our colleagues would like.
Let us look at the accountability mechanisms in the Bank of Canada Act. The bank is required to be accountable. Once a year, two independent firms must audit the bank's affairs simultaneously. That is one example. The Bank of Canada is the only federal Crown corporation subject to this requirement.
To ensure that this accountability is in place, the act subjects the bank to oversight by virtue of which the Minister of Finance can also request special audits and reports. As we can see, there are already mechanisms in place.
Furthermore, the Office of the Auditor General is already authorized to exercise an oversight role in certain areas of the bank's business functions. It may review and audit the bank's operations and records, because the bank serves as the government's fiscal agent, advisor on public debt management and manager of the exchange fund account.
Given the mechanisms I just cited, it is not clear how the Conservative Party's proposal would add actual value to the current situation.
Let us now reflect on the Conservative Party's position in introducing this bill. Its position is disturbing. Beyond the legislative changes themselves, this bill is part of a broader ideological agenda on the part of the Conservative Party to question the competence of the Bank of Canada and to undermine public confidence in it.
I will go even further. The Conservative Party's approach is troubling and very dangerous. Of course, the Bank of Canada is a complex, even abstract, institution for the general public. Understanding its role, its responsibilities, the decisions it makes and everything that entails is not necessarily within the grasp of even those with a keen interest in economics. This makes it the perfect bogeyman for many politicians looking for an easy target to blame for the current economic climate and the record surge in inflation these past few years.
That much is quite clear. The new leader of the Conservative Party and member for Carleton said during the leadership race that he was even prepared to fire the current head of the central bank, in other words, the governor.
It is unbelievable that the leader of the official opposition said that. I think he did not look too far for his inspiration. I suspect he copied this formula from a certain neighbour to the south.
If the Prime Minister were to fire the governor of the central bank because he did not agree with his monetary policy or because he needed someone to blame for the current inflation crisis, that would seriously undermine the independence of this institution, which is one of Canada's fundamental institutions.
It would also be an irrational, even impulsive act that could have devastating consequences for Canada's international image, its stability and also its ability to attract foreign investors.
We can all agree that firing the governor of the central bank is an idea that we cannot really take seriously. We can understand the desire to identify those responsible for certain crises, but firing the governor of the Bank of Canada will not solve the inflation crisis.
I am not saying that we must refrain from criticizing the role of the central bank. What I am saying is that although the governor's decisions can be questioned, it is irresponsible to go so far as to dispute the economic situation or inflation.
We note that, in the past few years, the Bank of Canada still achieved good results. Yes, I think it is okay to question the role of the Bank of Canada. That said, in 1991, the Bank of Canada set a target in order to limit inflation. Since then, it has always managed to keep inflation within a range of 1% to 3%.
It is okay to question whether the central bank's monetary policy will allow us to tame inflation for Quebeckers and Canadians. It is also reasonable to question whether the government used the central bank as an overly generous ATM because of the pandemic. However, we must take the time to put things into context and consider the big picture. We must, of course, avoid intellectual shortcuts, and avoid critics who take intellectual shortcuts.
Everyone would also agree that it is a question of intellectual rigour and honesty towards our constituents. We must go beyond simplistic discourse. I will put things in perspective in order to explain the cause of today's inflation. I would say that the vast majority of the factors that influence inflation are beyond the central bank's control. I would say that nearly 70% of the external drivers of inflation are not necessarily related to what can be controlled here in Canada.
I am thinking of factors, other than monetary policy, over which the Bank of Canada has no control. These include supply chains, which are in shambles because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. These factors have exacerbated inflationary pressures because of the impact they have had on the grain and fuel markets.
The central bank is one of the most respected central banks in the world. It has a reputation. The inflation that we are experiencing in Canada is not unique to our economy; it is being felt in all OECD countries.
Again, it is okay to criticize the central bank and its governor, but it is very dangerous and counterproductive to draft legislation containing language designed to attack the very legitimacy of the institution. That is what the Conservatives are trying to do through Bill C‑253, which seems to be fuelling incendiary rhetoric.
The Bloc Québécois will not play along, and that is why we are voting against this bill.
1158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my comments by quoting today's leader of the Conservative Party. This is something he said earlier this year:
I will fire the governor of the central bank to get inflation under control.
It is hard to believe that a leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, His Majesty's loyal opposition, would make such a bizarre comment. I am sure there are many former Conservative prime ministers who would have been shaking their head, as the finance critic, the member for Abbotsford, did when he provided his thoughts in regard to the comments of today's Conservative Party leader. People need to understand that when we think of the Bank of Canada as an institution and about the work it has done for generations, for the leader of the Conservative Party today to undercut and make the comments he made is highly irresponsible.
I believe there are members of the Conservative Party who understand that. They would not say it, because they saw what happened to the critic or the shadow minister of finance when he tried to provide assurances to Canadians that it was not an appropriate thing to be saying, at the very least out loud. The Conservative leader might believe it in his mind, but to share his internal thoughts caused a great deal of concern and damage.
Then it was compounded by a former leader, the member who introduced the legislation. He says he is the ultimate leader. We all know who I am talking about: the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He is the one who is introducing another piece of legislation about the Bank of Canada, calling into question the need for accountability.
Hon. Andrew Scheer: They failed.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: No, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has not failed. It has served Canadians well. I am getting heckled by the members across the way. Do they not understand the importance of having and respecting the independence of the Bank of Canada? Let us look at the years that it has put into effect sound policy.
At the end of the day, the Bank of Canada is recognized, not only within our borders but internationally, as an institution that has done exceptionally well for our country. Our previous governor actually went on to play an important role outside of Canada, in Europe.
The Bank of Canada is not a new institution. We are talking about going back to the 1930s. In fact, the very first building of the Bank of Canada was right across the street from the Parliament buildings, the old Victoria Building, where members of Parliament have offices today. It has been there since the 1930s, and it has been there for a good reason.
We could talk about the importance of monetary policy, like issues such as inflation. Let us remember the other wonderful idea that today's Conservative leader had on inflation. Instead of saying yes to Canadian currency and yes to the Canada banknotes that the Bank of Canada is ultimately responsible for, and our currency that the Bank of Canada monitors, what did today's leader of the Conservative Party say? He has more faith in cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. He has so much faith in it that he did not tell people to buy up Canadian currency; he told them to buy cryptocurrency, to opt out. He told them that the way to deal with inflation was to buy cryptocurrency.
Wow, what a brainer of an idea that was. Those individuals who followed that advice have lost 20%-plus, and some as high as, no doubt, 50% as a result. I do not know how many Conservative MPs followed that advice. Maybe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did. I would not want to admit to that.
639 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
At the end of the day what I see are economic policies coming from the Conservative Party. Are they serious? Do we want to talk about contrast? Let us look at what the Conservatives are proposing for inflation. The Conservatives are criticizing the Bank of Canada. Do they not realize that for generations the Bank of Canada has been held accountable? There are different ways in which that is done. There are independent audits that are conducted and provided to the government. Do they not realize that there are reports? I will give them a tip. They can get copies of those reports to see what the Bank of Canada has been doing, to provide them assurances that they are independent private audits that are done every year on the Bank of Canada.
Why is this legislation necessary? If anything, the Conservative Party of Canada is doubling down on that bizarre idea of firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Does it not realize the consequence of the types of statements it is making? It actually hurts the Canadian economy. It plants seeds of doubt regarding confidence in the Bank of Canada, because technically it is recognized as the official opposition. It is supposed to be the party in waiting. Hopefully it will be many years, possibly decades, that it will be waiting in opposition, based on the types of things we hear coming from it.
Canadians need to be concerned about it. I can assure the members opposite that when I have the opportunity to talk about economic policy and issues, I do not hesitate to talk about some of the bizarre things that we hear coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need to establish and support the Bank of Canada as much as we can with respect to building that confidence.
Dealing with inflation, we just spent a couple of hours earlier this afternoon, and we are going to spend more hours this evening, talking about the issue of inflation. As a government, whether it is the Prime Minister or members from across this country, we are concerned about inflation. That is the reason we have legislation such as Bill C-30, which we were debating just an hour ago and which has fortunately passed. It took us a little while to convince the Conservatives to support it, but they did. Kudos to them.
In about an hour from now, we are going to be talking about Bill C-31, again to deal with inflation. The Conservatives still have not come onside with that one, which gives dental benefits to children under the age of 12. It also provides support for low-income renters. I would think they would want to support that too.
We could pass that and then we could maybe go on to Bill C-22 and talk about the disability legislation, which is again legislation that would make a difference and would help Canadians in every region of our country. Instead, the Conservatives are bringing forward bizarre bills like the one the member has brought here before us today, which reinforces statements that the current Conservative leader has put on the record with respect to the Bank of Canada and the lack of confidence they have in it.
Let us get behind good legislation and pass it, and maybe put a pass on this one.
564 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by setting the record straight. I believe Regina—Qu'Appelle and Winnipeg North are both beautiful areas that are blessed with many great constituents.
To the member who preceded me, the member for Winnipeg North, we thank him for his service. With every speech, I look forward more and more to his retirement party.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 7:02:42 p.m.
- Watch
Order, please. I do not know whether we should be talking about those kinds of things on the floor, but we all appreciate the member when he stands and speaks.
The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, I am pleased to be standing here today for a very serious issue, which of course is Bill C-253. This act would give the Auditor General the authority, in the normal auditing cycle, to audit the Bank of Canada.
Before we get into the role of the Bank of Canada, how important this legislation is and indeed how important the Bank of Canada is, it is important to understand a bit of the context between the economy and the government. The first principle of any discussion of the economy in a political context is that productivity comes from our workers and business owners. In other words, the goods that are produced and the services that are delivered come from the private sector. When workers are more productive and when we are able to deliver services more efficiently and more effectively, by necessity the wealth of the country increases.
Monetary policy is, unfortunately, something our Prime Minister does not think about and perhaps should, given that we are in one of the worst monetary crises of the last 40 years. A little forethought on monetary policy would have perhaps been helpful, since, when we look at what monetary policy can do to an economy, we see that it can give it an artificial, temporary high.
When the Bank of Canada prints money or uses, as we call it, quantitative easing to fund the spending of a government, as with any country and any central bank, there is an initial exuberance as citizens see the money come into their bank accounts. However, that exuberance is, in fact, always replaced by a sense of extreme disillusionment as their bank accounts swell but they realize quickly that the cost of everything has increased. The troubling part about inflation is that it can be a self-perpetuating phenomenon, meaning that if we believe there is inflation, there is inflation. That inflation can linger on for many, many years after the money has been printed.
The true path to improving Canada's economy is through increasing productivity. It is the only real cure for the affordability crisis because it actually increases consumers' abilities to purchase. It also increases the power of their wages, increases the power of their pensions, creates jobs and, dare I say, as I know my friends in the NDP will cringe, increases profits. These are profits that can be invested back into the Canadian economy. They would take us away from where we are right now, which is last in the OECD in capital investment, and would allow our economy to grow and for our future generations to be prosperous.
However, while monetary policy at its best can push off bad things and perhaps give us a temporary high, monetary policy done wrong can have serious consequences. I will go through four of the Bank of Canada's responsibilities, but traditionally its mandate, at least up until the last two years, has been to be a bulwark against inflation, because inflation can have extreme and corrosive impacts not just on the economy but on the fabric of society. Many revolutions and civil disruptions have been created in the last 150 years to 200 years, and even before, because of rapid increases in inflation. Inflation is a really serious issue that affects people.
The Bank of Canada has four primary mandates. One is supply of money. Its job is to keep the money circulating through the economy. The second is to promote “safe, sound and efficient financial systems”. Third is to design the dollars, notes and coins we all use. Fourth is to be the fiscal agent of the government, which means there is a necessary connection there, because the more debt the government has, the more it needs to print. While there can be little doubt that there should be some independence, in part there is a connection, and there are no two ways about that, between the government that spends the money and the bank that funds the spending. That connection is there.
For years, the leader of the official opposition has tried to put people first by raising opposition to and concern over the fact that the government kept spending money and the Bank of Canada kept printing money through quantitative easing to fund extreme expenditures. He said early on that we would face inflation, and guess what. He was right.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the government said there would not be inflation. She said, believe it or not, that there would be deflation and that this should be our primary concern. That is zero to 10 on a math test.
Who else said that? It was Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada. At first he said there was no inflation. Then he said there was a little inflation. Then he said there was more than a little but it was just transitory, and then it was actually a lot of inflation but it was really just transitory. Now he says there is a lot of inflation and it is going to be with us for a while. There was one individual who was in this House of Commons publicly ringing the bell about the concerns of inflation, and that was the leader of our party. He should be celebrated. It is the Bank of Canada that got it wrong, not the leader of the official opposition.
I do not have to tell members about the real consequences that monetary policy has. We have seen tremendous pain. We have seen that 20% of Canadians have to change their diet and 20% more Canadians are going to food banks. This has real impacts. The need to have some type of oversight and accountability is incredibly important and urgent. We have seen a massive failure by the Bank of Canada. Its number one job and responsibility is to keep inflation under control, but we have food inflation at 11%, which will force children to go to bed hungry because the bank failed on a tremendous scale.
There has been lots of talk about different things that we are asking for. All we are asking for is that there be an audit by the Auditor General. That is not in any way compromising the independence of the Bank of Canada. It is just auditing.
Do members want proof? Look at the Public Service Investment Board. It is independent and has maintained its independence despite the fact that it is regularly audited by the Auditor General. It has been done and can be done. This is nothing new. We can certainly audit an organization. In fact, by definition, the auditor is independent; it is separate. There is no way that it is compromising the independence of the Bank of Canada. That argument is just silly. That is the only word for it.
The second argument I have heard against this legislation is that there are already auditors. There are different levels of auditing and different ways of auditing. Those audits are generally just looking at the numbers: Do the numbers make sense? Is the Governor of the Bank of Canada walking out with a briefcase of cash? No one believes that is an issue. I believe that the Bank of Canada can add and do its math and I am cool with that.
What the Auditor General does is it looks at the overall effectiveness of something. I had the great privilege of sitting on the public accounts committee and working with the Auditor General on her excellent work. She has raised the flag on a number of things that have spurred change. One is getting clean water to our indigenous communities. She had a great report condemning the government for its repeated failures.
To summarize, when we look at the issues, we have a significant failure by the Bank of Canada. All that Bill C-253, the great bill by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, is asking for is that we have accountability and transparency regarding an institution that has an impact on all 37 million-plus Canadians and can have a significant impact. We have seen it raise the cost of food and raise the cost of everything, making life harder. All we are asking for is accountability and transparency. Quite frankly, I am disappointed and very surprised that all members of the House will not support this bill, especially those from Quebec. Why they would not want additional accountability and transparency from the federal government seems strange.
1434 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support of this bill, and I would like to just quickly address some of the fallacies that came out of the government party in listening to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I cannot remember which Winnipeg riding the hon. member is from.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Winnipeg North.
Hon. Andrew Scheer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is Winnipeg North. It has been a tough year for Regina-Winnipeg relations from a Saskatchewan point of view, given the Blue Bombers and Roughriders, but thankfully we will talk about something that should unite us all here: accountability.
Accountability should be the one thing that all members of Parliament embrace. I can never understand it, but only a Liberal would think that increased accountability somehow undermines confidence in an institution, even when showing Canadians more of what goes on behind closed doors and when showing Canadians more about why the bank took certain decisions, why it acted when it did and, most importantly, why it did not act when it did not. Only a Liberal would think that this somehow undermines the confidence in an institution. This is not surprising, because that is how we have seen the Prime Minister act with everything from access to information requests to redactions to refusals, even taking the Speaker of the House of Commons to court to cover up the scandal at the Winnipeg lab.
However, we are not talking about that scandal today. We are talking about the economic vandalism that has gone on since March 2020, ever since the Bank of Canada decided to create money right out of thin air to purchase government bonds, depositing that brand new money, not backed up by any growth or increase in production, into the bank accounts of the large financial institutions. The bank bought IOUs from the government, bought them from those large financial institutions and flooded those institutions with large amounts of currency through digital assets and digital currency. Of course, they increased the money supply in other ways, including by printing cash and running the printing presses.
My hon. colleague pointed out fallacy number one: Accountability undermines confidence. We all know that to be false. Accountability strengthens confidence in institutions.
Audits are already being done. As my hon. colleague pointed out, audits are being done but they are a different kind of audit than what this bill calls for. I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North had taken the time to read that part of the legislation. This is not just about bringing in auditors like KPMG. It is about bringing in the Auditor General, who does performance audits and value-for-money audits.
While we are talking about value for money, did members know that the Bank of Canada, during the Prime Minister's tenure, for the first time in Canadian history is losing money. That is right. The state bank, the institution that has a monopoly on creating money in Canada, is losing money. That happened because when it bought government IOUs, when it bought those bonds, it did so at a time when interest rates were low. It put the new money as credits into the bank accounts of large financial institutions, and it has to pay interest on that. Now that it is raising interest rates, it is losing money on the money it received from the government because it has to pay even more to those large banks.
Can members imagine that TD Bank, Royal Bank and other large financial institutions that have these credits from the Bank of Canada are getting paid more from the bank than the bank is receiving in interest payments from the government? All that money just washes through the system, and the people who get the money first are the big winners. They can go out and buy a large number of assets, and when prices rise, they can sell them and make the difference on the spread.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, said that for the first time in Canadian history people are raising questions about the bank. This is not true. His former boss and former leader, Jean Chrétien, campaigned on firing the Bank of Canada governor in the 1993 election.
This is the point I want to make today. Institutions are only as good as the human beings who run them, and human beings are not perfect. We are all capable of making mistakes. We have someone who has so much power in this country, with the ability to affect the value of the money that Canadians have worked so hard to earn, and when they make such monumental mistakes, they have to be held accountable. This is not about punishing someone for a mistake. This is about replacing the Bank of Canada governor with someone who knows how to keep inflation low.
That brings me to my final point. My colleague from Winnipeg North said that there has been no failure at the Bank of Canada. He should tell that to the hard-working families that are using food banks for the first time because inflation has gone up so high. He should tell that to students who are living in homeless shelters because they cannot afford to make rent. If that is not a failure in managing our monetary system in Canada, I do not know what it would take for a Liberal to think it is time to take action.
922 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 7:17:37 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to please rise and indicate it to the Chair.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 7:18:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 7:19:00 p.m.
- Watch
It being 7:18, pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now resume debate on Bill C-31 at the second reading stage.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to debate Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.
When the Liberals introduced this legislation in September, they would have had Canadians believe that it was a bill aimed to partly address the affordability crisis many of us are facing, but we should not be misled or misguided by their political spin. This bill is less about addressing the affordability crisis and the soaring cost of living than it is about the Liberals playing more politics at the expense of our economy and, ultimately, the well-being of Canadians.
The Liberals are only being sustained in power right now through the support of the NDP, and the NDP are only supporting the weak Liberal government to advance items on their political agenda, which they cannot advance alone as they are a party with only 25 seats. One of these items is dental care. In fairness to the NDP, they are calling for the development of a comprehensive national dental care program, and this Liberal program falls far short of that.
What is Bill C-31? It is a temporary measure the Liberals came up with. They are using it to buy time and appease the NDP so they can keep their NDP-Liberal coalition alive and remain in power for the indefinite future. It is a program designed to make the government look like it is doing something when it did very little all summer to address the real concerns Canadians face.
Right now, 70% of Canadians have a dental benefits plan. In my province of Ontario, there are currently dental plans for low-income seniors and for those on social assistance, and programs for children under the age of 17.
At a time when the provinces have been asking for increased health transfers, which they have been asking for three years now, when will the Prime Minister meet with them to address their concerns so they can enhance existing programs and services such as these, which are currently being delivered to Canadians?
After seven years of Liberal governance in Ottawa, Canadians are realizing they are not better off today compared to when the Liberals first took power in 2015. This is especially true when we consider how badly Canadians are hurting today on matters of life necessities, such has housing, food and energy. Costs have skyrocketed on all three essential life necessities. These costs are largely being driven by federal government policies that are focused on excessive spending, increasing taxes and creating new taxes to pay for these bad spending habits from a bloated and growing government bureaucracy.
When it comes to housing, young Canadians have done everything they were supposed to do to achieve success and live the Canadian dream. They earned a degree and they are working hard, yet many are still living in their parents' basements or in a small, 400-square-foot apartment because the price of housing has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Our housing bubble is the second largest in the world. Recently, we learned that the percentage of Canadians who own their own home is at its lowest level in over 30 years.
When the Prime Minister took office, Canadians were paying 32% of their income, on average, to maintain a mid-sized home. Now the average family has to pay 50% of their income just to keep their home. A one-time payment of $500 will do nothing to address the real issues of housing affordability many Canadians face. In fact, more than six out of 10 renters will not qualify for the Liberal's inflationary spending cheques.
Many of the inflationary issues and concerns we face are of the government's own making. We have pointed out for months that the Liberals out-of-control spending would lead to an increase in interest rates. The government has responded by telling Canadians not to worry, to go ahead and take out big loans, since interest rates would remain low for a long time and there would never be any negative consequences. Now we are seeing interest rates rise 300 basis points, or 3% in simple terms.
In terms of food and food production, the Liberal government has increased farmers' taxes. That increases the cost of fertilizer and energy needed to produce food. Now it wants to limit the use of fertilizer. That will require farming more land to produce the same quantity of food. Tractors and other equipment will have to cover a larger area, burning more diesel and other fuels. More food will have to be imported. Bringing this food from other countries to Canada will again require using more energy.
For Niagara agriculture, this means it will cost more to grow grapes and local produce like peaches and cherries, and make our local Canadian-made wine even more expensive. In terms of food consumption, these higher production costs get passed along to us, the consumers, when we go to the grocery store or local farmers' markets to buy our food to feed our families.
Food price increases are already hurting many Canadians. For example, here are some of the headlines reported by the media that indicate this growing problem: “Child hunger a major concern in Canada amid skyrocketing food prices”; “Niagara Falls families straining under the weight of soaring prices”; “Food Banks facing unprecedented demand in Niagara”; “GTA food banks say they're facing the highest demand in their history”; “Nearly 6 million people in Canada experienced food insecurity in 2021, U of T study says”. The list of these troubling headlines goes on.
This does not sound like the developed and strong country our parents and grandparents fought through two world wars for and built throughout their lives with their hard work and labour. After seven years of Liberal governance, the Prime Minister and his government have eroded and undermined our collective and individual wealth, massively indebted future generations and repeatedly blocked and suppressed economic and financial opportunities for Canadian workers, businesses and industries in all regions of our country.
Since 2015, the Liberal government has become big and bloated. It has grown too large. Its reach has become too wide, and its actions are becoming far too intrusive into the private lives of Canadians. It picks winners and losers based on its political priorities, and its bad spending habits are entrenched. That is why it is desperate to increase taxes and create new taxes against hard-working Canadians. It is so it can continue feeding its reckless big-spending appetite.
The bottom line is that Bill C-31 is just another big-spending Liberal plan that only serves to keep the NDP-Liberal coalition alive. Of course, it masks it using affordability language, but in reality, it does nothing to bring down the costs of necessities such as housing, food and energy, including fuel and heating. The Conservative leader said it best in his speech when he said, “That is our role, here in Parliament, to turn pain into hope. Canadians need hope.”
As I am about to conclude, I wanted to share the comments of one of my constituents, Jessica, who had some real concerns about Bill C-31. In her recent note to me, she wrote, “The $600 benefit should not be going towards dental billing directly. As a low-income parent, for myself and my son, I have looked into some quotes for the bundle of dental, pharmacy and medical care, and I have seen quotes, at least for myself, at about $100 per month (unaffordable though compelling).
“In other words, I am expressing that having a benefit to get started up on my family's medical and dental insurance is the help our family needs and should be getting from the government, rather than having the funds wasted on one or two dental visits when myself and my son could both get coverage, receive the $600 (even half annually) and have more medical benefits to keep us healthy. This is important to me as well as I approach middle age.”
I am proud to support my new leader in his mission to make a real difference in Canadians' lives through supporting policy measures that will actually make life more affordable. Bill C-31 would not do that. It is not a bill that would actually help Canadians. It is a bill designed to keep the NDP happy so that the NDP-Liberal coalition can continue.
We need to give Canadians back control of their lives in the freest country in the world, where the dollar keeps its value, so our citizens can have the life they work so hard to build.
1474 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could thank the member for this speech, but I think his constituents, 30,000 of whom do not have access to dental care in his riding, would be a bit disappointed if I thanked him for his speech. The Conservatives are basically dumping on dental care and the expansion of the health care system, and on the support for housing, which is so essential to meet the housing crisis people are seeing right across the length and breadth of this country, including in his riding.
The sum total of the Conservatives' contribution to the debate on this bill, which would help people with dental care and housing, is a kill amendment that would destroy the whole bill. This is so disrespectful to the tens of thousands of Canadians in his riding, and ridings right across the country, who need access to dental care. The NDP's dental care plan, as he knows, rolls out over three years. What it would do is help 30,000 families in his riding by the end of the process. Housing also needs to be supported.
Why are the Conservatives opposed to real measures that would help people in their ridings at this critical time?
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
