44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question, because it gives me a chance to address the fallacy that has been created by the Conservative Party that inflation in this country is something that exists only in this country, which is patently untrue.
Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon, and Canada is faring significantly better than the other G7 countries. I would be most interested in hearing from the party opposite about which of the measures we put in place to help Canadians through the pandemic that they would have cut.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the much-discussed Bill C-31 introduced by the Liberal government. What to think about it?
This is an unusual bill. On the one hand, it proposes helping families with children under the age of 12 access dental care. On the other hand, it provides rent assistance to those who are struggling to make ends meet because of inflation. In essence, these are ideas we cannot very well oppose. The bill is positive, and the intention is laudable.
The question, however, is why and how it was done. I think that how it was done is more important, because although people may have good intentions, the way they carry them out can be less than perfect.
In this case, the Liberal government says that it introduced this bill because of inflation. However, the real reason they introduced the bill is that the Liberal government across the aisle made a deal with the NDP, and the NDP sold out for a pittance. The NDP promised that they would force down anything put in front of them without a peep. They promised they would close their eyes and bury their heads in the sand even if it made no sense. All the NDP asked for in return was that the government implement a dental care program.
2021 is over and done with, and we are now at the end of 2022. The government was not going to do it, and, understandably, the NDP was disappointed. The NDP therefore asked the government to at least pretend to respect the deal under which it gave the Liberals carte blanche.
The government then agreed to develop a program, which it basically scribbled on the back of a napkin. It presented a program that had several problems. Actually, it is not really a program, because all they are doing is sending out cheques. Are they really enabling people to access dental care by sending out cheques? Will people really have less trouble paying their rent if the government sends out cheques? These are reasonable questions. If we take a closer look at the bill, we may be able to answer them. It is even more important to know who will be receiving those cheques. Another issue is how the money will be distributed.
Rent assistance should help everyone. The government plans to send a $500 cheque to families who earn less than $35,000 a year. I must say, it is very difficult to make ends meet when you earn less than $35,000 a year, especially with ever-increasing rental costs. According to one of the program’s eligibility criteria, families who earn less than $35,000 a year must allocate at least 30% of their income to rent.
Therein lies the rub, and it is the same thing for dental benefits. In Quebec, we decided to help our people, but Canada has decided to adopt another approach. In Quebec, for example, we have co-operative housing that fosters sharing. People often pay rent based on their income. Some people pay higher rent to compensate for those who pay lower rent. We try to avoid having people pay more than 30% of their income on housing. That does not mean that these people are fabulously wealthy or that they are driving Ferraris. It simply means that there are people helping them make ends meet.
Unfortunately, these people are not eligible for the assistance in this bill, and that is disappointing. The same is true for people who live in low-income housing. In Quebec, we decided to finance social housing so that many people could have access to rental housing and put a roof over their families’ heads. These are people who do not have a lot of money. Some of them are retired and live solely on their federal pension and a few cents from the guaranteed income supplement. They can barely put food on the table.
The government says that it will help everyone except these people, the very poorest. They are telling those who are struggling the hardest to make ends meet that, since they are already getting assistance, the government will help someone else instead. That is disappointing, because many Quebeckers will be completely ineligible, since Quebec has a social safety net and the federal government across the way did not take that into account when it developed its program at the kitchen table. Naturally, the New Democrats are rubbing their hands together with glee because they can say they gained something. It is disappointing, because, in the end, Quebeckers will be the losers, and they will lose out even more with the second component of the program, the dental benefit.
The Bloc already had reservations about this bill, but it is even more worried about the dental care benefit. I will tell members why. When people think teeth, they do not automatically think federal government. They think that dental care is a health issue and that the health system is under the Quebec government’s jurisdiction. This is even mentioned in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Liberals are certainly very familiar with the Constitution. They wrote it themselves in 1982 when they patriated it. They added a few bits and pieces to it, but they must have looked to see what was already in it before adding other bits, to make sure that it all made sense. They are the guardians of the famous Constitution they imposed on Quebec in 1867 and again in 1982. They can say what they want, but there was no referendum in Quebec before the Constitution was adopted in 1867. There were even major debates about whether it was a good thing or not. The vote had a very low turnout, unlike all the other votes, and they wanted to avoid putting the question to the ballot box and to Quebeckers.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, are important. I remember hearing members across the aisle yesterday saying that it is crazy, that we cannot vote on the monarchy, we cannot sever ties with the King, because we would have to open the Constitution. For them, the Constitution is like the Bible. They lie in bed at night reading and praying to the Constitution. We cannot overlook that fact. It is obvious. However, when we see the great bills introduced here on a daily basis, we realize that the Constitution is practically used as toilet paper. Clearly, when it does not suit them, they do not respect their own Constitution.
That is sad, because under the Constitution, health care is the purview of the provinces and Quebec. If the Liberals had said that they were going to give dental benefits to indigenous people or military members, that might make sense, because their health care actually is a federal responsibility. However, it is outrageous for them to meddle in matters that are none of their business when, as we know, they are not even capable of providing us with passports. People want to take flights, but they have to wait in line for days to get a passport. Once they get to the airport, they have to wait for hours to collect their bags. Then they have to stand in never-ending lines to board the plane, and when they get out, they do it all over again.
I went on a flight very recently, and I was amazed to discover there was no waiting in line in Europe. Everything moved quickly. I was really surprised. I wondered how this could be possible, since we were told that the problem was global. Apparently, we are different from the rest of the world. Canada has even ranked among the worst countries.
The federal government is not even able to provide the services it is actually responsible for. It can take years to process immigration applications for temporary foreign workers, leaving businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are calling us in a panic because they cannot get the workers they requested a long time ago, and yet this federal government is telling Quebec that it knows how to deal with the problems. It says that it knows better than Quebec about things Quebec is already doing. It says it will impose a new system on top of the system that already exists in Quebec.
Let us not forget that all children under the age of 10 are already covered in Quebec. There is already universal coverage in Quebec for youth who need dental care, so this federal program does absolutely nothing for all children under the age of 10. The sad part is that Quebeckers will continue to pay their taxes to the federal government. What will happen? The federal government will take Quebeckers' money and send it elsewhere, because Quebec already helps its residents. What I was saying earlier about rent will help happen again with children. Ultimately, we are getting shafted.
The federal government will not only cover children under the age of 10, but children aged 10 to 12, as well. We are talking about a two-year gap. It could be argued that getting a little something for children between 10 and 12 is worthwhile, but that emphasizes another difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We have a much higher unionization rate than the rest of Canada. The NDP should be happy about that, but that is not reflected in their support for the bill. Since Quebec has a much higher unionization rate, that means that Quebeckers often have better working conditions and are able to negotiate to obtain better coverage, including dental care. As a result, many children between 10 and 12 are already get dental coverage.
It is sad because, once again, they built—
1646 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member has amplified how these programs are going to have a direct impact on so many Canadians in all regions of our country.
I would highlight the fact that when we take a look at inflation rates, even though Canada, in comparison to the world, is doing relatively well, we still need to take direct action to support Canadians. That is really what Bill C-31 would be doing, while at the same time establishing a national dental program for our children. I am wondering if the member can expand on its true value and how it is helping in a time of need but also providing future hope for a more permanent dental program for Canadians.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today I am proud to speak to the government's plan to make life more affordable for hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast, through Bill C-31, an act respecting direct financial support for dental care.
It is fundamental that I begin my remarks by reminding the House why this legislation is essential for Canadians as we make the cost of living more affordable. In a time of global inflation, families are having to make challenging decisions at the grocery store, when paying rent or other essential bills, and with all aspects of their daily lives.
Inflation is a global challenge that is not restricted by borders and does not discriminate based on socio-economic status. It is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by Russia's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, and the government is committed to helping families weather the impact of the higher cost of living by putting more money back into the pockets of middle-class Canadians and those who continue to work hard to join them.
When the government came into power in 2015, we understood how critical it was to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest 1%. We have continuously stood with Canadians during the most challenging times, and we will continue to provide essential support through the implementation of Bill C-31.
The current oral health care system does not provide equal access to services for Canadians. We know families have made the challenging decision to forgo essential dental treatments due to the high costs. To ensure that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our communities have access to dental care, we have proposed Bill C-31, an act that will deliver more than $900 million to support oral health through the Canada dental benefit.
Beginning in 2022-23, children under the age of 12 without insurance will be eligible to receive dental coverage. Advocating for improved access to the Canadian oral health care system is essential to Canadians. We understand that many families find themselves in a difficult position when they consider seeking oral health services. We do not want parents to find themselves in the position where they must decide between their children postponing or forgoing dental care at a time when their teeth are still developing.
In Canada, dental surgery performed under general anaesthesia in pediatric hospitals is the most common day surgery. This procedure accounts for one-third of all surgeries performed on children between the ages of one and five. We know that 57% of children aged six to 11 have had a cavity, with an average of 2.5 teeth affected by decay.
In more severe cases, tooth decay in young children can lead to an infectious disease, one that causes pain, interferes with their sleep and growth, and causes lifelong impacts to oral and general health. It is the children in our communities who have experienced the painful and detrimental effects of poor oral health. It is our responsibility to ensure that no child, present or future, will experience the pain of not receiving essential dental treatments.
The Canada dental benefit will ensure that children who have not had access to routine oral health care will have improved oral health and an improved quality of life by reducing the potential need for more invasive and costly treatments later on in life. The benefit proposed in this legislation would help break the cycle of poor oral health for the youngest Canadians.
The Canada dental benefit would provide direct payments to eligible applicants, totalling up to $650 per year per child for families with an income under $70,000. An estimated $390 will be provided for families with an income of $70,000 to $79,999 and $260 for those with a family income of $80,000 to $90,000.
It is estimated that over 500,000 Canadian children could benefit from this targeted investment of over $900 million. To access the Canada dental benefit, parents or guardians of eligible children would apply through the Canada Revenue Agency. Applicants will need to confirm that their child does not have access to private dental coverage and that they will incur out-of-pocket dental care expenses for which they will use the benefit.
To be eligible for the funds, people may not have received a full reimbursement for treatment under another government plan. They will also need to provide documentation to verify the out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the benefit period. This may include providing receipts to the CRA.
Our government will take action to ensure that Canadians receive the benefit as quickly as possible, so that children may begin receiving necessary dental care. This legislation will give the Minister of Health authority to implement this application-based upfront benefit payment to eligible Canadians later this year.
Our government has established December 1, 2022, as the target implementation date of the Canada dental benefit, pending parliamentary approval and royal assent. The benefit will retroactively cover expenses from October 1, 2022, as long as the child remains eligible until December 1.
In addition to our government's commitment to this program, we will continue to support oral health in Canada for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will continue to work with partners and stakeholders in providing oral health services and making life more affordable.
In budget 2022, our government committed $5.3 billion over five years, and $1.7 billion ongoing, to provide dental care for Canadians who otherwise could not afford it. Our government is working diligently to design and implement a long-term national dental care program to ensure that every Canadian can have access to oral health services.
It will take time to ensure that this complex national program is sustainable long-term. However, it will remain a top priority for our government. We will continue working closely with key stakeholders, industry partners, academics and dentistry associations and organizations to help inform decisions on implementing a national dental care program. Until such time, the proposed Canada dental benefit would provide parents with children under the age of 12 with financial support to help address the children's dental care needs and increase their quality of life.
To provide the time necessary for Health Canada and the CRA to make the necessary preparations to deliver the benefit to Canada, the legislation we are proposing needs to be approved urgently.
I trust that all members will agree that oral health services are essential to Canadians, and join us in supporting this bill that will help thousands of families from coast to coast to coast.
Our government understands that parents want to do what is best for their children, and that financial barriers should not prevent them from accessing the necessary dental care their children require. Passing this bill is an important step toward protecting the oral health of children throughout Canada and ensuring that we eliminate the cycle of forgoing necessary dental care.
1174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member made reference to Bill C-30. It kind of goes hand in hand with Bill C-31. Both of them deal with the issue of inflation. The member said the Conservative Party voted in favour of it. Yes, the Conservative Party voted in favour of it. The member then went on to say that they were encouraging it and tried to take credit for it.
I need to remind the member that the Conservative Party of Canada, which he is a member of, initially did not support Bill C-30. It was not until days later, after being shamed into it, that it changed its position and supported Bill C-30. Recognizing that Bill C-30 is the one that he just said was a good bill, Bill C-31 is also a good bill.
Does he believe that the Conservative Party could be shamed into supporting Bill C-31, as was done with Bill C-30?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about budgetary measures and legislation that will really have an impact on the lives of Canadians in all regions of our country.
We talk a lot about inflation, and there are a couple things I would like to convey right at the beginning.
First, we have to be honest with Canadians and tell them exactly what the situation is. When we compare Canada to the rest of in the world, much like the pandemic, we are not immune to inflation. We had a worldwide pandemic and have worldwide inflation. How does Canada compare to other countries, like the United States, our greatest trading partner, Europe or England? Canada compares relatively well. Our inflation rate has been consistently lower than those countries. It does not mean we do not have an inflation issue.
We hear it every week within our caucus and every day in our constituencies. As the Prime Minister has indicated not only to Liberals but to all members, our responsibility within our constituencies is to take those ideas and concerns and bring them to Ottawa. Liberal members of Parliament do that on a regular basis. As a result, what we see is a government that is trying to deal with the issue of inflation.
That brings me to my second point on inflation. It is not good enough for us to say that because Canada is doing relatively well compared to other countries in the world that we do not need to do more. We are committed to providing relief where we can.
I made reference to this in a question to the previous speaker. Bill C-31 complements other pieces of legislation, in particular Bill C-30. Bill C-30 provided a doubling of the GST tax credit. That has impacted over 11 million Canadians. Our population is about 38 million and 11 million Canadians have benefited from it. That is money in their pockets as a direct result of the House of Commons ultimately passing the bill.
Contrary to what some of my Conservative friends will try to tell everyone, they initially opposed that legislation. To their credit, they did come onside and support it because they recognized that Canadians would benefit from it.
The challenge we have before us now is saying to the Conservatives that Bill C-31, like Bill C-30, is good, substantial legislation that will help the constituents we serve.
When we think of inflation, we talk about going to the grocery store and the cost of food. It is going to places where we have to purchase commodities and widgets. Those are real dollars that need to be spent. Canadians are concerned about that and we should be as well.
When we talk about children in our communities who do not have the financial means to get critical dental care, this legislation deals with that in good part. We have a national government that wants to provide direct support for children under the age of 12 so they can get dental care, children who might otherwise not receive it. As a direct result of not receiving that dental care, they could end up in our hospitals.
We can check with the children's hospitals and community hospitals. We will find that children are going to these health care facilities virtually everyday because they have been unable to have their dental issues addressed.
I applaud the New Democrat members in recognizing and prioritizing this issue. It complements our health care system.
However, I am not surprised by the Bloc member, because they want Canada to break apart. They are separatists, and they do not believe in national programs. On the other hand, members of the Conservative Party, a national party, not supporting what our constituents want is so out of touch with Canadians if they believe the federal government has no role to play in health care. Every one of them is out of touch with reality with respect to what their constituents want. Their constituents not only want but demand that the national government play a role in health care. We see that in our Health Care Act.
Talking about long-term care, have the Conservatives not learned anything from the pandemic when it comes to health care? Do they not realize that Canadians expect issues like long-term care to have national standards? Do they not recognize that Canadians want a national government to invest in mental health? Some members of the Conservative Party have said maybe not for dental care but more for mental health. Therefore, some of those members seem to acknowledge that the federal government should play a role in mental health, but they are definitely not consistent. We, on the other hand, recognize that Canadians want leadership on the health care file, and that is what they will get from this government.
We get misinformation from across the way when those members say that the federal government provides 22% funding. I used to be a provincial health care critic during the 1990s, and that is just wrong. In fact, the history of health care funding goes back to when there was a tax point transfer given to provinces as a compromise, which saw the percentages go down, and, yes, there was somewhat of a cut in the 1990s. However, there was also a guarantee of ongoing national involvement in cash transfers or equalization payments as we call them today. However, this government has not only invested historical amounts of money into health care transfers, but we have also invested in long-term care, mental health, and today we are making a commitment to dental health.
Today we are talking about children. Tomorrow we are going to be talking about seniors and people with disabilities, recognizing that there is a need. At the same time, it would help with the issue of inflation. Bill C-31 might get a lot of attention with respect to the dental program, but where the Conservatives are losing it, once again, is on the rental support of millions of dollars. Close to two million people will benefit from this. A substantial amount of money will go to low-income families and individuals in rental support. One would think this is something the Conservatives would want to support.
When the Conservatives talk about fighting inflation and helping Canadians through inflation, not only does the doubling of the GST credit assist but so will Bill C-31. For my Conservative friends, because I anticipate there will be a recorded vote on this, I suggest that they reflect on whether they have constituents and children under the age of 12 in their ridings who would benefit by the passing of this bill. Do they have tenants in their ridings who would benefit by the passage of this bill? The short answer is, they do. Hopefully they will flip-flop and support the bill.
1159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today.
We are here talking about Bill C-31 and I thought, because it has to do with the inflation issues in Canada, I would quote the famous economist Milton Friedman. He was not a Canadian economist. Nonetheless, he was a Nobel Prize-winning economist.
This is what he had to say about inflation. He has been dead for years, but obviously this rings true today. He said, “There is one and only one basic cause of inflation: too high a rate of growth in the quantity of money—too much money chasing the available supply of goods and services.” That quote is from approximately 50 years ago, and it was as true then as it is today.
Another thing he said was that people learn and governments never learn. I think that is also true today.
If we look at what is happening in Canada with the M2 money supply and how it has continued to increase, based on the numbers I have, it has increased a lot in the last two and a half years. However, if we look at where it peaked, which my numbers say was in July, that is also roughly the time when inflation peaked in Canada, which was in June, at 8.1%. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the comments economist Friedman made many years ago ring as true today. They are evidence-based here in this country. There is only one place where inflation starts, which is with the government and the money tree, the printing of money.
Former finance minister Bill Morneau and the current finance minister, in my opinion, have very little credibility on where the cause of inflation started and even less credibility on how it should and shall be fixed. Let me go through some excuses that have been proposed in the last year alone.
In September and October of 2021, it was, “Don't worry, folks. Inflation is transitory.” Do members remember that?
I can hear a child crying in the gallery because she just found out how much she will be paying for her fair share of the debt.
In November, it was because of greedy corporations. Do members remember that? It was then said, in December, that it was because of supply chain bottlenecks. In February, the blame was laid on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the spiking of gas and oil prices. At the end of the day, the root cause of the inflation in this country can be laid at the feet of the finance ministers and the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Another point of reference and data on inflation is from October 2015. There was a Conservative balanced budget and the inflation rate in Canada was 1%, further proving our point that fiscal policy directly impacts the inflation rate. In October of 2015, with the Conservative balanced budget, which was the last time we saw a balanced budget, the inflation rate was 1%, but today spending is out of control and inflation is over 7% or 8%.
If we went up and down the country roads and main streets to ask people where their biggest point of pain is right now with respect to inflation, almost 100% would say that it is the costs of heating their homes, paying their electricity bills, keeping their vehicles on the road, and putting groceries in their cupboards and fridges to feed their kids or family.
I am not saying these other things are not important, because they are, but if we were to ask people today what the most important things are, it does not matter what political party we are from, the people we represent are probably going to tell us that. We heard it today, and I am glad it was brought up because it has to do with consultation.
The idea of this bill goes back a long way. Jack Harris had a motion similar to this in the previous Parliament, Motion No. 62. That was my old buddy Jack.
With this particular bill on dental, it is obvious there have been no consultations. When the minister made the announcement, it was not with provincial health ministers. It was not with premiers to say look what we have done together. This was a direct cash payment support to keep the government of the day in government.
It would have been great to have a consultation with the provinces, health care professionals and dentists to ask what the benchmark is. I know our Deputy Speaker is from Nova Scotia, and there is a good possibility that Nova Scotia has one of the best dental care programs in the country.
In Ontario, the province I represent, it is the healthy smiles program. On average, the Nova Scotia plan is enhanced from what Ontario has. It would have been great for everybody to get together to say that Nova Scotia has a great plan. Maybe we would need to put it in over a number of years, but let us have it all hammered out and have a five-year plan or a 10-year plan to make it happen.
What we are looking at today, we can call it dental care, but it is not dental care. This is not a form of dental care. The provincial programs, I would argue, are a form of dental care. We can argue if they are good, bad or need enhancing, but they truly are forms of dental care. What we are seeing today is a direct payment to people to help pay for a dental bill.
If we went around the countryside and asked people what their number one priority is for health care, I do not believe dentistry would be in the top two or three answers, depending on who we asked. If we ask families what the number priority is, they would say not having a family doctor. That is probably the number on problem. If people are sick, they have no place to go other than the emergency room, and they have no doctor who has a reference of their medical history.
I just mentioned the emergency room. In the hospitals in the area I represent, their emergency rooms are closing at night or are completely closing. For many members of Parliament, it is just like it is in Huron—Bruce. If we asked the people in my communities, such as Clinton, Walkerton or Seaforth, what is more important, and they would say it is all important, but this is probably the most important thing for them: They do not want to wait 12 hours for a kid to be seen by a doctor to find out what is wrong with them. People who are parents have probably had that experience before. There are a lot of issues.
We can think about how the times have changed just in the last seven years. I heard an anecdote today on the television. It was someone saying that they used to worry about if they could get a parking space downtown. Now they are worried that, if they go downtown and park, they are going to get stabbed in the back by somebody and get robbed. This is all in just seven years. I do not completely blame the Liberals, obviously, on that one, but that is what people are thinking.
What I would say on the rental issue is that I am in a rural area. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are from a rural area. We have huge affordable housing needs in our ridings, along with many others. The dollars that are offered in this rental program will help, but if we are really looking at what can make a difference in the country and make a difference in rural communities, we should give that money to the provinces and let the provinces work with the counties and municipalities to build long-term affordable housing. That would have been a far better use for it. Mayors In Saugeen Shores, Kincardine, Goderich, Exeter and Clinton, in my area, would have been well-served by commitments for affordable housing.
1374 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech and he created some very loose associations, starting with the fake Harper surplus of October 2015.
I will read what Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail, a reputable newspaper in Canada, said at the time. It states, “The Conservative government's long-promised return to surplus relies on a series of accounting moves that includes slashing the contingency reserve, assuming oil prices will climb and collecting billions more in Employment Insurance premiums than necessary.”
Putting that aside, the fake surplus was preceded by nine years of deficit, yet as the member himself just said, inflation was only 1% after those nine years of deficit. How does he square that?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of measures the government is taking to deal with issues like inflation, such as Bill C-30, which deals with the doubling of the GST rebate, and Bill C-31, dealing with dental and rental benefits.
One of the programs that I am a big advocate of, which we often forget about, came out in budget 2022. It is a new multi-generational home renovation tax credit. This is a fantastic program that enables people to look at the value of adding a secondary unit to their homes. It is a great way to support our seniors and support people with disabilities.
We all know that seniors thrive so much more when they are in a family environment, as it encourages families to continue to grow together. To me that is what this program is all about.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:21:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister spent $6,000 for one hotel room per night in London and then spent that evening singing up a storm and partying in that fancy hotel lobby, it was really an analogy for his whole government: a half trillion dollar party with other people's money and Canadians got the hangover; a million and a half visits in one month to the food banks; the fastest-rising interest rates in 30 years; the fastest inflation in four decades.
When will the government realize that Canadians are out of money and the party is over?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:29:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, families are making difficult choices about what food they can afford and costs are only getting higher. Today, a report from Food Banks Canada proved that people just cannot keep up. At record rates, families are turning to food banks to get the help they need. The Liberals have a responsibility to support Canadians. Instead, they have sided with rich grocery CEOs who are hiding behind inflation to line their pockets.
When will the Liberals hold big grocers accountable for the price gouging Canadian families are experiencing?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:29:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House is concerned about inflation and about the prices Canadians across the country are facing when they go grocery shopping. That is exactly why I called upon the leaders of these supermarkets and grocery chains across the nation to do their part to help Canadians. I called a number of them to say that we want to see action. In addition to that, I demanded that the Competition Bureau start an inquiry and a study to look at making sure there is no unlawful practice. We will do everything we can to support Canadian families at this time.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:30:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-made inflationary fire is hitting Canadians' pocketbooks and Liberals will throw more fuel on that fire by tripling the carbon tax. Food Banks Canada says that a 40-year-high inflation in the cost of groceries is forcing 20% of Canadians to use food banks and one-third are children. The Liberals caused the inflation with their out-of-control spending, and now they are raising taxes when Canadians cannot afford it.
When will the Liberals stop their inflationary spending and stop raising taxes?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:31:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not serious about helping Canadians. He spent $24,000 on his hotel stay in London. That is the average annual rental cost in Canada and he blew it in four days. Families and students are going to food banks and homeless shelters because the Prime Minister's inflationary policies are driving up costs while he sings in luxury hotels abroad, finally putting his drama degree to use. He caused the inflation and interest rate hikes with out-of-control spending.
How does he justify this to struggling Canadians?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:57:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, understanding and doing something about it are two entirely different things.
Behind this record inflation and rising interest rates are real people facing a real and harsh reality. They are exhausted, worried and broke, and the Liberal government is intent on piling on even more financial burdens.
I asked this question last week and I will ask it again. Will the government listen to Canadians and cancel its plan to triple taxes on gas, groceries and home heating?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:59:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for the question and for her hard work.
Inflation in Canada has shown signs of slowing down. That said, we understand that the cost of living remains a concern for Canadians. The current inflationary period is the result of the war in Ukraine, problems with the supply chain and the zero COVID policy in China.
That is why we took action by bringing in bills C‑30 and C‑31. We have passed Bill C‑30 in the House and we are close to passing Bill C‑31.
We hope the Conservatives will support Canadians and vote in favour of Bill C‑31.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand on a Thursday and answer the Thursday question.
To my hon. colleague across, perhaps he is not aware or perhaps he has not had the opportunity to peruse headlines from around the world, but inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. I might also note that inflation is actually much higher in the U.S., the U.K. and the eurozone. What we need to do is vote for measures. I was disappointed that the Conservatives did not support the legislation we had today, Bill C-31. They had an opportunity to support families with dental care and to support housing.
I do not think it will come as a surprise to the member opposite that we will under no circumstances abandon the cause of climate change. We will under no circumstances stop the work we are doing to put a price on pollution and give eight out of 10 families more money back than they pay for that price on pollution.
In terms of the matters that are immediately before the House, although I do encourage the member opposite to continue forwarding his ideas and look forward to those conversations, this afternoon we will complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care—
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we are on the third and final reading of Bill C-31. We just went through a voting process, and I suspect that most Canadians would likely be somewhat disappointed in the Conservatives and the Bloc for voting against Bill C-31 at report stage concurrence motion. It is concerning given the very context in which we are having this debate.
The members opposite talk about the issue of inflation and how we can help Canadians. This is legislation that will put money in the pockets of Canadians in all regions of our country in a very real and tangible way.
I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate for a number of hours, whether during second reading or earlier today at report stage. I can tell members that I believe that the arguments being presented by the Bloc and Conservative parties would disappoint a majority of Canadians. I think that both the opposition parties are not reflecting what the majority of Canadians want to see, especially if we factor in the issue of inflation.
For the last number of days, the Conservatives have talked about inflation, saying it is so bad in Canada that we need to do something. When it comes to actually taking action, they do not support the government in doing that. I hope to address two or three points in my speech.
The first is with respect to a realization of what is happening around the world. I made reference to this earlier. Inflation is taking place around the world. Canada, as the government House leader just mentioned, is really not doing that bad with respect to our inflation rate compared to countries such as the United States, England and many in the European Union. That does not mean we should not be taking action to support Canadians.
Bill C-31 is one of those pieces of legislation with budgetary actions that are there to support Canadians in every region of our country. However, we find that, as much as the Conservatives like to talk about dealing with inflation, when it comes to standing up for Canadians by voting in favour of measures that would assist them, they vote against them. Although, in fairness, that is not completely true.
After all, we did have the doubling of the GST tax credit, which I referenced earlier today, that is putting money in the pockets of 11 million Canadians. Imagine that. There are 11 million Canadians who are getting a doubling of the GST rebate. The initial response from the Conservatives in particular was to vote against that legislation. In time, they saw the light. They saw that it was putting money in the pockets of Canadians and they reversed their position. Good for them. However, we are not seeing that with respect to Bill C-31.
Bill C-31 establishes two measures. One will put more money in the pockets of people and the other will provide a child dental care program that will prevent children from having to go to the hospital.
Let me expand on both of those points. If we take a look at the issue of child dental work, in virtually every province, we will find children going to hospitals because they were not able to get necessary dental work. We know that for a fact, that our hospitals are used as a last resort because of the lack of dental work being done on children.
When we stop to think about it, we have legislation that would be telling moms, dads, grandparents, guardians and others that, if there is a child under the age of 12, no matter where that child lives in Canada, and I will concede that some provinces do have better dental services than others, but we are not discriminating, based on income level their guardian, they will be provided with financial assistance in getting that dental work done.
It is ultimately a positive step forward toward a true national dental care program. I believe that, if we were to canvass, most of our constituents would see that as a positive thing. Why is there opposition to it? Not only does it provide a high-quality program of benefits, but it also enables those individuals to get that money to do that dental work, especially at a time when people are concerned about buying their groceries, so they do not have to necessarily make the decision of whether one's seven-year-old child will have extra groceries or if they should be getting that dental work done.
There are many households that are having to experience making that decision. The Conservatives, and the Bloc, apparently, based on the last vote, say that it is not their problem. It is not the problem of the opposition party. They say that we do not need to provide this type of service.
I would argue that the legislation before us goes a long way in ensuring that good decisions are, in fact, being made on behalf of the children in Canada, that every child, no matter what region they live in and no matter what province or territory that they live in, if they meet the criteria, will be, in fact, able to be assisted in getting that dental work.
The Bloc even goes further. If it were up to the Bloc, there would be no assistance whatsoever, because often the Bloc looks at Ottawa as nothing more than an ATM. It does not realize that, whether we are looking to Quebec, Manitoba or either one of our three coasts, we will find that the people of Canada understand and value the national government playing a role in health care. In fact, we have legislation called the Canada Health Act to ensure that we continue to play that critical role.
During the pandemic, when we had serious issues with long-term care, or when we have had issues dealing with mental health, no one should be surprised when the Government of Canada steps up and provides support, both directly and indirectly.
The bottom line is that, from the separatist point of view, the separatists do not want to have these national programs. I totally disagree with that. I respect where they are coming from, even though I absolutely, totally disagree.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to not want to recognize what Canadians have recognized for years, which is that the national government does have a role to play in health care. When we look at the issue of dental health care, that also matters. It is not crossing provincial jurisdiction.
The best way we are going to be able to move forward with a true national program is when we can get all the different stakeholders onside. In the interim, we are establishing a national benefits program. This year it will deal with children, and next year it will deal with seniors and people with disabilities. I would think that the Conservative Party would understand that.
We have been there recognizing the importance of health care because we know how important health care is to Canadians. That is why we have the health care accords with all the provinces. That is why we have historical amounts of money going to the provinces in the form of health transfers, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars put toward mental health.
Whether it is on a motion from the member for Avalon on long-term health care or other needs, Liberal members of Parliament reflect the interests of their constituents when they come to Ottawa. That is what we see. We do not see that coming from the Conservatives, and that is quite unfortunate. That is one of the things the Conservative Party and the Bloc are voting against.
The other thing they are voting against is the issue of rental support. We will have 1.8 million people who would be able to take advantage of having money in their pockets through this particular aspect of the legislation. Individuals who are having a difficult time will be able to make rental payments.
I would argue that we are talking about hundreds into thousands of constituents, depending on the riding. Let there be no doubt that, every riding in this country will access that particular program. That is in the neighbourhood of up to $500. When the Conservative Party talks about inflation and asks what we are doing regarding inflation and how are we helping Canadians, this is helping Canadians in a very real and direct way.
Here is the difference: The Conservatives like to talk about inflation, put a Conservative spin on inflation to try to give the impression that Canada stands alone, or that maybe we are the ones who dictate to the world there will be inflation. They have all sorts of misinformation.
The Conservatives say the government should do things, but when we are doing these things, when we recognize where the inflation is around the world and that Canada is doing well, as I indicated at the beginning, it is not good enough.
If we talk to Liberal members of Parliament, at the very least, and other members, we find that our constituents are having a difficult time when they go to the grocery store. They want to buy some groceries, and they see the price increases taking place. We understand that when someone is celebrating a birthday, people want to go to a store to buy them a birthday gift, but the costs are going up.
People need to understand and appreciate the fact that holiday seasons are coming up. Many of the measures we are taking are happening in the short term to help Canadians where we can to provide more money in their pockets.
In Question Period today the Conservatives were mocking the CERB program. The program cost billions of dollars, but it was there to support Canadians at a time when the government needed to be there. When economies were shutting down in certain areas and people were not able to go to work, the Government of Canada had their backs. We provided biweekly cheques. It was a significant investment because we wanted to be there for Canadians and we were in a very tangible way.
Today the Conservatives criticize the billions that we spent in regard to getting Canadians through the pandemic. At the time when Canadians were looking for support, we were there and we continue to be there. The Conservatives were balking and now they are criticizing us for having borrowed money back then. They are saying that we have inflation because we borrowed that money. The Conservatives need to wake up to the reality. It is either they are supporting the people of Canada or they are not.
It seems to me that the Conservatives supported the many measures at the time of the pandemic when we were borrowing the money. However, today, they are criticizing us for borrowing the money. They are also saying that the inflation rate we have today is because we borrowed the money to support Canadians. I would point out that our inflation rate is lower than the inflation rates in the United States, England and many of the countries in the European Union.
The Conservatives are not consistent with their policy advice. We all remember that the current leader of the Conservative Party, less than a year ago, told people that the way to fight inflation, in part, was to invest in cryptocurrency. He advised Canadians to use their hard-earned money to invest in cryptocurrency. Those who followed that advice would have lost substantially, 30%-plus.
The Conservatives talk about triple, triple, triple. I think they got the idea from Tim Hortons' double double. Triple, triple, triple; how misleading is that? Eighty per cent of the constituents in Winnipeg North receive more money from the price on pollution than they actually pay into it. That is according to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is not the Liberal Party saying that. It is actually increasing. They try to give the false impression on that issue, and it is not the first time.
The Conservatives are trying to develop those bumper stickers that they believe they can sell to Canadians, whether it is factual or not. More often than not, it is not factual.
I am disappointed that the Conservatives voted against Bill C-31. They have one last chance, which will happen sometime in the next six or seven hours. I hope that they will reconsider the manner in which they are voting on this bill, support their constituents and vote in favour of this legislation.
2123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to represent the constituents of Regina—Qu'Appelle in opposition to the bill that would add more inflationary fuel to the fire.
I caught the last few minutes of my hon. colleague's speech, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, and I am astounded at how much he can get wrong in just a short 20-minute period of time. However, I give him full marks for efficiency. He crammed a lot of errors and misinformation into one 20-minute speech. I probably do not have enough time to address all of them in my speech because of the sheer volume of inaccuracies in his speech.
I will start by helping the hon. member understand what caused inflation, because that is what this bill is supposed to be about. It is supposed to help address the suffering of families who are experiencing the sticker shock every time they go into a grocery store, a hardware store or any other store they might have to buy goods or obtain services from. Prices they have been used to over the past few years are now much higher. We know the Prime Minister does not think about monetary policy. I am not sure if anybody else in the caucus does that the member leads, but I will help him understand what causes inflation.
The inflation that Canadians are suffering from is directly linked to the massive Liberal deficits that the government chose to run before the pandemic even started. Why do I say that? That is what the Bank of Canada admitted. The Bank of Canada, which is in charge of Canada's money supply, has acknowledged that it was the money creation that it embarked upon in March of 2020, just as the current government was racking up record-high deficits, the biggest deficits Canadians have ever seen. It was on its way to adding more to the national debt than every single other prime minister combined. The government added $500 billion to the national debt.
When the government spends more than it takes in, it has to borrow. It has to find someone who has money to lend to it. That is normally carried out during normal economic times by the bond market. Large investors buy government treasury bonds that are basically IOUs that the government writes after borrowing money from someone who has it and spending it with the promise to pay it back. It is that promise to pay it back with interest that is costing the Bank of Canada money now. As a little aside, the Bank of Canada is now actually losing money for the first time in Canadian history. This has never happened before. However, I will get back to that in a moment.
The government turned to the Bank of Canada and started floating these IOUs, these government bonds, and the Bank of Canada said it would buy the bonds the government was issuing with these massive deficits. The problem is that the Bank of Canada did not have anybody else's money. The Bank of Canada did not have lots of deposits from Canadians or deposits on account from financial institutions that it could use. When I say it did not have deposits, I mean it did not have any of its own money on deposit. It did not have some vaults of cash that it could buy those government bonds with.
What did it do? It had to create the money. It created that money right out of thin air. It exchanged the bonds that other institutions had bought, large profitable banks like the big five banks in Canada and other types of large financial institutions that have accounts with Canada's central bank. They bought the bonds from the federal government and sold them to the Bank of Canada in exchange for brand new money that had never existed before. With little ones and zeros and keyboard strokes, the Bank of Canada just dumped cash into those big banks and large financial institutions and then took those bonds in exchange. That is how the Canadian economy was flooded with over $400 billion of brand new money.
We have seen the effects of that, the Liberal government's trickle-down economics, where it pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the most wealthy and most profitable corporations in Canada: the big banks. It pushed that money through that system. The big winners, when it comes to this type of arrangement, is whoever gets the money first as there is a bit of a lag between rising prices and money creation, because the market has not yet learned that there is a whole bunch of new money chasing the same number of goods. The prices in the grocery store have not yet, at this point, started to go up, and the prices for commodities have not yet, at this point, started to go up.
Those large financial institutions, those massively profitable banks, got to buy up all these assets. They got to push that money through on everything from commodities to real estate to anything else we can imagine, while the prices were still low. They got the new money first, bought as much as they could, and that is when the prices started to rise.
By the time that new money hits Canadians' pockets, it is already too late. The prices at the grocery store have already skyrocketed. We have seen food inflation go over 8% for a couple of months now. The average inflation index, the CPI, has been hovering around 7% for several months now. By the time Canadians start to get the new money the government has created, the prices have already gone up, and that is when those big banks and financial institutions can sell. They make those massive profits on what they can buy low with newly created money and sell high after the inflationary effects are taken into account. That is why we saw record profits during and after the pandemic by Canada's largest banks.
This is the result of the Prime Minister's economic policy, allowing the richest and most profitable corporations in Canada to make even more money, while Canadians subsidize that profit through higher prices in the grocery store aisles. That is why these inflationary deficits are so devastating, and that is why Conservatives are opposed to new measures that force the government to borrow more money to pay for new spending. It is a little like a superficial treatment to a problem.
We can all think of examples of what might look like a course of action that would help with a problem but that actually makes the problem worse. We might have experienced in our lives and have seen public service videos about fire safety where they say to never pour water on a grease fire. However, we can imagine a young child perhaps or someone who was never educated along the lines of fire safety seeing a fire, and we are all taught from a very young age that water beats fire. We put out fires with water, and we always keep a bucket of water if we are having a campfire and things like that. We all understand that. We see pictures of firefighters putting out fires with big hoses of water.
We can imagine someone about to dump water on a grease fire, thinking that they are helping, but we all know what will actually happen. We have to resist the temptation to apply a superficial antidote to a problem. We all know on this side of the House that instead of pouring water on that fire, we have to treat it in other ways. We have to put a lid on that fire and remove it from the heating element. There are others ways to tackle that fire rather than making it worse.
A thirsty person might look at an ocean shore and think, “Boy, I'm so thirsty, I'm going to go down and take a nice long drink of water.” As Homer Simpson taught us, “Water, water everywhere, so let's all have a drink,” but that is not actually how the poem goes. It is “Water, water, every where, nor any drop to drink,” because ocean water makes thirst worse. However, that is what we are seeing with this Liberal government bill.
The member for Winnipeg North gave a speech pretending and trying to convince Canadians that this would help, that while prices are going up in many aspects of their lives, the government is coming along with a way to reduce some costs for them. Where are they going to get the money for that? They are going to have to borrow more money to pay for that, so any benefit that any Canadian might hope to receive under the government's plan that we are debating today will evaporate because of the effects of this new government plan.
In other words, the government is trying to convince us that a government program will help alleviate the problems caused by government programs, and that is where Conservatives come along because we take a more comprehensive look at issues.
The Liberals and their allies in the costly coalition, the NDP who are pushing all this new spending and working hand-in-hand with the government to drive up the costs of living with higher spending and more borrowing to pay for it, is where this is coming from. That costly coalition's approach is always very superficial. We can make the comparison to candy before supper. There is a problem, so here is a simplistic solution: We are just going to have a new government program to dole out more money.
Conservatives understand that we have to treat the fundamental issues that caused it first. We would be doing Canadians a far greater service, including low-income Canadians who are being hit hardest by inflation, if we came to this place every day trying to reduce the cost of government, looking for ways to reduce spending and cutting out inefficiencies, like the half a billion dollars the government tried to give to its friends at the WE organization or the $54 million for the arrive scam app that did not work, was not needed and could have been designed and programmed in a weekend for a fraction of the $54 million taxpayers had to pay for it. The Prime Minister might have looked at ways to visit London where he did not have to charge $6,000 a night for a single room. Those would be the types of things.
We could all come together and every member of Parliament could go back to their offices tonight and scroll through the public accounts, which were just tabled this morning. We could all put our collective heads together to look for ways we could eliminate wasteful spending and bring down that cost of government, so that the government could pay back those IOUs, retire those bonds and take that brand new created money that is floating in the system out of the system to return it back to normal, where that money is backed up by real economic activity and not just ones and zeroes on the computer terminals at the Bank of Canada.
If we did that, we would put a lot more purchasing power back in the hands of Canadians who have worked so hard to earn it. That is why they call inflation the hidden tax, the most insidious tax of all. When the government raises a tax rate, it has to do it in the House for all to see. It has to bring forward a motion or a bill to raise those taxes, opposition parties hold it to account and every Canadian has an elected representative who can vote yes or no, based on that proposal.
However, when the government causes inflation through the Bank of Canada by forcing the bank to purchase those government bonds, there is no vote in the House, there is no debate and there is no accountability. Not any one of us got to read the proposal, make a decision and vote based on our constituents, and our constituents cannot hold us to account because none of that ever took place. It just happens. It happens because those powerful unaccountable officials just made a decision one day, and that is why Conservatives are opposed to this legislation, knowing it would make the problem worse.
There are other ways the government could tackle the cost of living crisis. This opposition has proposed a very concrete proposal, which we should be debating today instead of a bill that would add more borrowing costs on the government and, therefore, lead to even worse inflation.
We are about to head into the winter months, and many Canadians are already getting a taste of what those home heating costs are going to look like over the next few months. I want to take a few moments right now to inform members that the higher costs that Canadians are about to get hit with, and some have already started to experience, are not some accidental outcomes from government policies. These are not unintended consequences. It is not like the government was trying to do something and accidentally caused home energy costs to rise.
This is a feature of the NDP and Liberal coalition's plan to make home heating costs more expensive. They want Canadians to pay more for filling up their tanks and for heating their homes. Members do not have to take my word for it. They have admitted it. They have built a fake environmental policy around the idea of making Canadians pay more for fuelling their cars, for purchasing goods that have to be transported to Canada and for the crime of heating their homes in the winter.
That is what they want. They want Canadians to feel pain when it comes to those types of goods. They admit it. It is in the rationale for the carbon tax. Here is the thing: The carbon tax is not working. Canadians are getting all of the pain and none of the environmental gain. The government has not hit a single target it has set for itself. The people who are concerned about climate change the most should be opposed to the carbon tax the most, because the government has gone all in on a failed policy that, for seven years now, has been proven not to work.
That is why the official opposition and Conservative members of Parliament have been working so hard, since this fall sitting began, to convince the government to do no further harm when it comes to borrowing and spending and driving up inflation, to control some of the things it can control and to cancel the planned tax hikes.
The government's plan is to triple the carbon tax. The member for Winnipeg North might like to make jokes about the Tim Hortons double double, but there is a reason we are highlighting it and a reason we want Canadians to understand. It is because it is already hard enough to make ends meet for the vast majority of Canadians. We are hearing really shocking stats. Canada is a G7 developed country, and 1.5 million people visited a food bank last month. That is unbelievable.
It is a record high. It has gone up 15%. There have been 15% more visits to food banks last month than the month before. It is Canadians who are working, who have two jobs in some cases, and those in double-income households. Because they have to pay more for their mortgage as interest rates go up and costs are higher at the grocery store, they now have to turn to charity at food banks just to be able to feed their children.
What else is very alarming is that food banks are running out too, because Canadians have fewer goods to donate to the food banks. That is the thing about Liberal-NDP coalition economic policies. They lead to scarcity.
When Conservatives are in government, we lower the cost of government. We leave more money in the economy and more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, and that does more good for low-income Canadians, because there are more jobs to fill and there is more opportunity. When Canadians have more at the end of the month, they can make decisions to be charitable. They can fill up those shelves at the food banks so that the less fortunate have more choice, more options and more support when they need it.
NDP and Liberal policies that drive up the cost of fuel, home heating and other essentials and chase away jobs and investment mean there is less at the end of the month for Canadian families to donate to charities, so those families who do need it have less.
That is the constant and unblemished record of failure of the government and its failed policies. That is why Conservatives are fighting this instead of voting in favour of a bill that would just add to the cost of government, leaving Canadians with a situation in which the government has to go out and borrow more, paying higher interest rates.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech how the Bank of Canada is losing money for the first time in Canadian history. This is the perverse outcome of the bond purchase program the Bank of Canada initiated to help pay for the government deficits. When it bought the bonds, the Bank of Canada bought them at very low rates. The Bank of Canada had lowered its overnight rates as low as 50 basis points; it was down to 0.5%. The interest the government had to pay on the bonds the Bank of Canada holds was at 0.5%.
Let us remember that the way it bought those bonds was by putting large deposits into the bank accounts of the large financial institutions. For example, TD Bank and CIBC have accounts at the Bank of Canada, and there are deposits in those accounts for the bonds the bank sold to the Bank of Canada. As interest rates rise, the Bank of Canada has to pay more interest to those large financial institutions than the government pays the Bank of Canada in interest. That is unbelievable.
This is a direct transfer of wealth: Hard-working taxpayers pay money to the government; the government then turns around and pays the Bank of Canada interest, and the Bank of Canada does not have enough, so it is going to lose money. I believe it has indicated that it expects to lose about $4 billion this year. That is from the bank's website. If the member for Winnipeg North thinks I should not believe everything I read on the bank's website, he should maybe call his friend, Tiff Macklem, and ask him to be a little more accurate.
The question for the government is, is it going to have to bail out the Bank of Canada with taxpayers' money? After taking taxpayers' money to pay interest on the bonds it sold, it will now have to underwrite the difference that the Bank is paying out to other large banks. If we follow the logic here, basically the government is going to have to underwrite the deficits that the Bank of Canada is racking up due to its own deficit spending. It is a triple insult to Canadians, when we look at all the interest that is being paid.
I will close by urging my colleagues on all sides of the House to stop digging when they are in a hole and to not pour water on that grease fire. Let us have no more inflationary spending that will make the problem even worse.
3347 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are so many questions I would love to be able to ask the opposition House leader, but, due to time limitations, let me take advantage of his economic analysis and ask him to reflect on countries like the United States and England and many European countries, where the inflation rate is higher than it is here in Canada.
Would he draw the same sorts of conclusions, given that some in the western world have taken the ideas from Canada and others? Why do they have the inflation rates they have? Did they have bad policies too?
Why do they have the inflation rate there? Perhaps he could use his same principled economic analysis system.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
