SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 218 - Jun/21/23

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/21/23 6:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for a skilled worker wanting to work in Quebec, the wait time is 20 months. Whoever needs a passport might as well bring a lawn chair to the Service Canada offices because that is where they might end up taking their vacation. Whoever has a passport and by some misfortune has been shortchanged by the airline, after waiting forever at the airport because the flight was cancelled or a suitcase was lost, then it takes a year and a half to get compensation if the claim is successful. Whoever loses their job and wants to get EI benefits from the fund they contributed to for years better have a six-month emergency fund because that is how long it can take to get the first cheque. Clearly, this government is no champion when it comes to providing services to the public. Does my colleague think that a cabinet shuffle this summer will fix all that?

157 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/21/23 6:21:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have no idea what that had to do with the motion we are debating today. That sounded more like just a Bloc Québécois list of grievances that he wanted to express to the House. We are committed to helping Canadians where they need those supports. That is why we have rolled out countless measures in the last number of months and years, and why we will continue to do that.

77 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Jun/21/23 6:21:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have seen many extraordinary stunts in the House. Perhaps one of the most spectacular was by the member in Stornoway, who has benefited from 20 years of free dental care and now has a 19-room mansion paid for by the taxpayers, as well as chefs and groundskeepers. He came into the House and said that he was going to stand and speak until the budget was changed. Then he ran out of gas three hours later. Now, the Conservatives want us to stay into the late night, until the budget is changed, all to deny children and seniors dental care. I want to ask my hon. colleague a question because he has been accused of rhetorical hot air at times, but I would say that maybe that was just elevated temperature and talk. Why does the member think that the member in Stornoway could not sustain himself in his attack on dental care for seniors, running out of speed after a mere three hours? What does that say about his ability to drive the Conservative agenda anywhere, except maybe into the ruts?

186 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/21/23 6:22:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, came into the House and said that he had sent out fundraising emails about how he would filibuster forever or until he got what he wanted. Then he came in here and talked for about three and a half hours. That was it. I have seen him filibuster for closer to 20 hours, since I have been in this House. To me, it just says that the member for Carleton is really losing steam. He does not have that spunk he used to have. This is really going to translate into how he is able to sympathize—

114 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/21/23 6:23:20 p.m.
Watch

It is time to resume debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

11 words

Joliette

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/21/23 6:23:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are applauding me because I am announcing that I will be sharing my time with the member for La Prairie, who is also my esteemed House leader. Populism is proposing simplistic solutions to complex problems in order to pander to the population's most basic instincts. Today's motion is a good example of that. After giving an accurate picture of inflation, household debt and the housing crisis, the Conservatives are saying that the solution is simply to eliminate deficits. I guess that housing prices will then magically drop and households will have less debt. That is populist rhetoric. Beyond the rhetoric, the motion asks only one thing, which is that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.” That is what we are voting on today, and the Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly supports that, because governing involves planning and forecasting. Bringing forward a plan to return to balanced budgets is the least that we can do. Had the motion called for approval of the rhetoric of the Conservatives or the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois would vote against it in either case. Canada is going through a tough time right now. On the one hand, a spendthrift and unserious Prime Minister is spending lavishly on one-size-fits-all programs to promote his ideology rather than to meet immediate and real needs, including in areas that are outside federal jurisdiction. On the other hand, the populist and somewhat mean-spirited Conservative leader is proposing nothing except to get rid of the Liberals. His sound bites serve as economic policy, and his vision of the economy and the environment is stuck in the 20th century, the century of oil. Between the two, there is the Bloc Québécois, which proposes tangible measures. It proposes flexible and targeted programs to meet people's real needs. These are much less costly and more effective programs than the current one-size-fits-all initiatives. It proposes to bring some order to how the government operates to end waste and the chronic inability to manage properly. This is all related to my question. The Bloc proposes to end interference by having a government that uses its flexibility to address matters within its jurisdiction rather than increasing initiatives in areas that are not its responsibility. The Bloc proposes to end support for oil companies and shift that money to programs specifically designed to transition to renewable energy rather than remaining trapped any longer in the 20th century of oil. The Bloc proposes a federal government that stops spreading itself too thin and focuses on its fundamental responsibilities, which are the following: stopping the erosion of purchasing power, especially for seniors; providing a level of health transfers that ensures the sustainability of public services; creating a Marshall plan for the construction of social and community housing; and ensuring we have employment insurance that works. In short, we are proposing a real plan to balance the budget, which will strengthen the core responsibilities of the government and avoid the full-scale austerity that could risk plunging the economy into a recession. A plan to return to a balanced budget is necessary, especially since the government is increasing its initiatives in areas that are not within its jurisdiction, which causes tensions, boondoggles and costly duplication of efforts. A study by the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, a research group at the Institute for Research on Public Policy, analyzed federal spending since 2015 and came to the following devastating conclusion on June 7, saying, “the current Liberal government has used federal funds to seek provincial engagement with its own social policy priorities....the current trend is toward a more directive and less collaborative use of the spending power....Partnership seems to be conditional on a province accepting the federal government's policy vision.” A plan to re-establish balance is also a way to put an end to federal paternalism that uses its spending to impose its own political choices on Quebec. Things have also been mismanaged. Every time Ottawa touches something, it ends up costing too much. Ley us take the gun registry fiasco. They spent $2 billion to maintain a list. At that price, Quebec could not afford to keep a registry of vehicle license plates. Managing employment insurance costs two and a half times more than managing social assistance. Ottawa's management of passport files costs four times as much as Quebec's management of drivers' licences. That is another product of fiscal imbalance. Since Ottawa is collecting more taxes than it needs to meet its responsibilities, it does not need to be a good manager of public funds. For the Bloc Québécois, a plan to re-establish balance means putting an end to waste. There is a way to manage the state a little more rigorously. That rigour will make it possible to avoid the austerity the Conservatives are inviting us to accept today in their speeches. Historically, the biggest driver of price volatility has been oil prices. The best way to protect against this is to move to the post-oil period as soon as possible. Already, 98% of Quebec's electricity comes from renewable sources and is immune to oil prices. Oil and gas account for only 13% of home energy consumption. The rest is electricity or firewood. These are all energy sources that are not affected by oil prices. The Quebec fleet is the most electrified in Canada. The network of charging stations in Quebec is the most developed. The price gap between electric vehicles and gas-powered vehicles is constantly shrinking. The sale of personal gas-powered vehicles will be banned in Quebec as of 2035. We need to accelerate this shift. The best and cheapest way to do that is to redirect the money currently earmarked for modernizing the oil industry to clean energy. In the post-oil world, Quebec has everything it needs to be the most prosperous society on the planet. Since the government has not taken any budgetary or legislative measures to address the sources of inflation, it is the Bank of Canada that has had to act with the monetary tool it has at its disposal: rising interest rates. Yet there are things the government could have done. In order to provide relief for pensioners on a fixed income, the government should have increased old age security. The government increased OAS only for those aged 75 and up, leaving those between the ages of 65 and 74 to fend for themselves. As we know, according to OECD estimates, the net pension replacement rate was 50.7% of pre-retirement income in Canada. In other words, the transition to retirement means a major drop in the average standard of living for Canadians and Quebeckers. The average net pension replacement rate for OECD countries was 57.6% and the EU average was 63%, so Canada has a poor record in this regard, lagging far behind Italy, India, France and Denmark. We are doing only slightly better than the U.S., where inequality is skyrocketing. We need to take action. We need to better protect the standard of living of our seniors. To reduce pressure on the cost of housing, the government needs to increase the supply of social and community housing. The current funding will not make up for two decades of underfunding and the resulting housing shortage. To limit price increases on consumer goods, we need to improve competition laws. Last December, the Governor of the Bank of Canada told the Standing Committee on Finance that concentration in the food distribution sector and the lack of competition had led to the prices hikes we saw, which resulted in significantly higher profits for that sector, on the backs of consumers. The competition regime needs to be reformed, particularly to slow down the trend towards concentration and the abuse of dominance that naturally ensues. In the face of rising household debt, we need to regulate credit card fees, which are the costliest form of debt for heavily indebted households. The government's announcement in the last budget that it trusted credit card issuers to set and maintain reasonable fees is woefully inadequate. In the face of supply chain problems, we need to make it easier to increase local production; support investments that help boost productivity to counter the adverse effects of higher interest rates on investments in production equipment; address the labour shortage, which is getting in the way of adjusting the supply to meet demand; encourage seniors to keep working by not penalizing them with GIS clawbacks; and make it easier to use temporary foreign workers in professions where there is a labour shortage by transferring management of the program to Quebec City, which is already doing the impact assessments that the federal government is asking business owners to do. Those are some of the measures the government could take to address both the cause and effects of inflation. Lastly, let us not forget the importance of seriously addressing the use of tax havens by major banks, multinationals, web giants and the wealthy. It is high time that this grossly unfair loophole was closed. It is immoral and we must make it illegal.

1567 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Jun/21/23 6:32:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy working with my colleague from the Bloc at the finance committee. I find him to be an articulate and thoughtful member of the committee. Our motion is basically to call on the government to balance budgets. I will note that, during the 2015 campaign, the Prime Minister promised he would balance the budget by 2019. Just recently, in the fall economic statement, the government had projected a surplus in the 2027-28 year. It quickly reneged on that in this budget on March 28. Could the member share his thoughts on how anyone can believe anything the government says when it comes to balancing budgets?

111 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/21/23 6:33:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a few years ago, the pandemic happened and the economy shut down. The House was unanimous in stating that we needed to implement protective measures and safeguards. That came at the cost of significant debt. There was a consensus in the House about that. Since then, the spending has continued, however, and that is concerning. What concerns the Bloc Québécois in particular is the interference in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. That really is not warranted. I, too, want to salute my hon. colleague. It is a pleasure to work constructively with him at the finance committee.

107 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/21/23 6:34:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. We have worked together before on the finance committee, and he has been an excellent colleague. I would like to ask him a question. In terms of the balancing of the budget, does the Bloc Québécois believe in a balanced budget, and what would it do to get to that point if the Bloc members do indeed believe in balancing?

76 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/21/23 6:35:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank and commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. It was an immense pleasure and privilege to work with him at the Standing Committee on Finance. He is doing great work in his new job. We do not agree with every argument presented in the motion. What we find there is disingenuous. The motion asks that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets” without specifying a date. To us, governing means being responsible and presenting projections. We support this desire for transparency. I will offer some solutions to my colleague, since he works in the revenue department. In the fight against the use of tax havens, there is a lot of money to be recovered. That is something that would help in returning to balanced budgets.

142 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/21/23 6:36:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I found it very interesting. While Alberta's oil and gas companies were making record profits, workers were being laid off. This year alone, 14,000 workers in Alberta have been let go. Does my colleague think that one way to balance the budget would be to stop subsidizing highly profitable companies and to introduce a windfall tax?

68 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/21/23 6:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which she asked in French. I congratulate her. It means a great deal to me. The problem is being stuck in the 20th century with a 20th-century economy. The money going to prop up the oil industry should be used for the transition. We must not let workers in Alberta down. We must support them in transitioning to the sectors of the future. I am convinced that if all the support that is currently being provided, including a large part of the $80 billion that has been announced, were used in a smart way to develop the economy of tomorrow with Alberta's valuable workers, we would be able to succeed with flying colours.

130 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/21/23 6:37:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the fine speech by my colleague, who let the cat out of the bag: We will be voting in favour of this motion. The arguments contained in the motion, and I think that he elaborated on them, are obviously not to our liking. However, we agree with the conclusion: that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets”. When it comes to inflation and interest rates, things can get quite complicated. What better way to simplify issues than with populism and things that seem obvious to everyone, when they are actually not? Why do we have inflation? Some will say that inflation is caused by government spending. I want to sound a note of caution, however. Inflation happens if the government spends money and if it creates deficits. Some people will therefore be tempted to say that deficits lead to inflation. That is not necessarily true. This is what is known in economics as the crowding-out effect, a term we do not often hear. It means that government deficits might not result in inflation because there is a crowding-out effect, meaning consumers save money to make up for the government deficit. The result is that there is no impact on inflation. The crowding-out effect may mean that there might be an impact on interest rates, however. Why am I saying this? I am saying it because the thing is not so easy to understand. We could spend a long time discussing economic theories. Furthermore, some theories clash. Keynesianism is different from classical or neo-liberal economics, and so on. We have to be careful to avoid simplistic analyses or we run the risk of ignoring real solutions. Is government spending to blame for the deficit? Is the Government of Canada responsible for global inflation? Did it ride around on a scooter, waving its arms, saying it was going to send us money and create inflation, before running away like Batman and Robin? The answer is no. I just spelled it out in simple terms. The government is not to blame. The fault lies with the global pandemic, and with the fact that governments were forced to spend like never before in history. I never saw anything like it before. Governments were spending money hand over fist, like it was going out of style. That is the reality. Faced with an extraordinary situation, we came up with what we believed were the best solutions at the time. That is why we have inflation. I have the figures. Inflation rose to 6.8% in 2022 and fell to 4.4% in June 2023. We can therefore agree that inflation was mainly caused by a pandemic. Why is that? It is because we have economists who are monetarists. Monetarists believe that inflation is caused by printing money and that abundance reduces value. The more money is printed, the less that money is worth. This means that the value of money is eroded by inflation. That is the view of monetarists. A lot of people agree with this. That is why it is the Bank of Canada that finds solutions to Canada's inflation. Our colleague, the leader of the official opposition, believes that it has fangs and prowls around at night, but in reality, the Bank of Canada is one of the most renowned banks in the world. When we travel abroad, for example to universities, we only have to mention the Bank of Canada and the audience applauds for half an hour. It is unbelievable. It is so renowned that the English decided that they wanted the Governor of the Bank of Canada for themselves. It is a little like Bedard in the world of hockey. He was that sought after. I am just talking, but if members want to read something that is well done, they should read the Bank of Canada Review. It is well done. When they finish their university degree in economics, good economists often end up at the Bank of Canada—except for me, because I escaped. I was in the washroom when the recruiters came by. Some say that they are crazy, but they really do know their stuff. It is a renowned bank. In 1991, they said that the only way to fight inflation effectively is to tweak interest rates. Starting in 1991, the Bank of Canada was the second bank, after New Zealand, to say that it would adjust interest rates to keep inflation between 1% and 3%. That worked beautifully until the pandemic hit. It was going so well. We were a model for the world. Now, with the increases, what did they do? They were forced to raise interest rates. It is a bit complicated. When a government adjusts monetary policy and plays with interest rates, it takes 18 months for it to have an impact on the economy and 24 months for it to have an impact on inflation. This requires projecting two years in advance before starting to play with things. That is the reality. It is not easy. Having said that, we could all go for a beer and tell ourselves that there is no point in us being here because the Bank of Canada manages inflation. Wait a minute. That is not true. There are things that the government can do. First, the government can introduce well-defined policies. If wages are very high and workers are scarce, then perhaps workers could be found if the government offered tax exemptions to older people who want to go back to work. Is that complicated? A guy with glasses and a computer can do that. No, the government would rather use the stick. They bleed dry seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 and hope that once they are at the end of their rope, they will surely want to go to work. No, that is not how to create jobs and ensure that these people can go to work. Let us talk about housing. There is a lack of housing. It is a matter of supply and demand. We need more supply. The government needs to invest in housing. That is the smart way to fight inflation. As for oil, we have been ripped off by shameless increases in the price of oil. Perhaps it is because we should be doing something other than burning oil. Perhaps we should be investing in the energy transition of oil companies. With regard to productivity, we have to increase worker productivity without making more widgets. If we make more widgets, then there are more widgets on the market and the value of widgets will drop. This is not complicated. People are wondering where I stand because I have not talked about it yet. The last part of the motion reads, “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.” I would like to emphasize two things. We need restraint, not austerity. The government must stop wasting, stop encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, stop proposing one-size-fits-all measures, and stop giving money to oil companies because doing so is wrong. It has to get smart about its spending. That does not mean embracing austerity. Most of all, it must not achieve these things on the backs of Quebec and the provinces, or else services to the public will be disrupted. Most public services are delivered by Quebec and the provinces. The government must not try to rebalance its budget by cutting back on health transfers to the provinces like Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did in the past. That must not happen. There is something called the fiscal imbalance, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the needs are in Quebec City and in the provinces, and that the money is in Ottawa. This means that, even if the government remains virtually static, it will be so drowning in money thanks to the taxes it collects and the fact that it has few areas of responsibility that 40 years from now, in addition to not having a deficit, it will no longer have any debt, and some provinces will not even be solvent. They will be forced to start from scratch under another name. I do not know if they will, but they will no longer be solvent. There is a problem somewhere. Some think that a plan to return to a balanced budget means austerity measures. That should not be the case. There is no reason why it should be, for the reasons I outlined. This government must become responsible in how it spends money. No one can claim that it is an example. I understand that the country has weathered the COVID‑19 pandemic, but after returning to normal, no one can say that it has been rigorous and intelligent in its spending choices. I just mentioned some ways in which the government could have done better. Some people spoke earlier about how the government provides its services. Let us just say there is a lot of room for improvement. To impose a plan would make this government more serious, less frivolous and less careless. The government needs to make do with the amount of money it has available. It must be intelligent. It must not cut transfers to the provinces, because they are the ones who deliver the most important services to the public. It must be preventive with regard to inflation, which is currently eroding the purchasing power of those least well-off. As I said, this government needs to have targeted, intelligent spending to protect people in need. Doubling the GST tax credit was the right thing to do. I applaud that. However, we also need to fight inflation intelligently, not in a populist way.

1657 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Jun/21/23 6:48:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague from La Prairie. I can easily imagine that he would be a favourite teacher of his students. He is an economist and I can only agree with him. I would like him to tell us, the opposition parties, things we might not understand. Here it is the month of June and the House is about to adjourn for the summer. We spent all spring being told that we were mistaken. I would like to hear my colleague explain to me what motivated the government's attitude when it said that its plan was working. If we look at the dashboard, Canada cuts a sad figure on the global stage. I would like my colleague to talk about that.

128 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/21/23 6:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, and I thank him for his question and his compliments, as well. We have the right to accept them. I am not criticizing. I am answering my colleague's question. I think that the hallmark of this government is that it is short-sighted. We saw it with the Chinese interference. The government is going along, but it is not always easy to get on the best path to improve the situation of the community in Quebec and Canada. That is what we are also seeing with the policies that this government adopts. It chooses the easy way out. There is a reason for the dental care plan. Tax credits and subsidies for oil companies are easy. People want them. There is no problem. That is the old way of doing things. When I suggest ways of motivating retirees to return to the labour market, it is not a short-sighted policy. Social and affordable housing are not short-term policies. In economics, we call working on productivity a long-term policy. It takes vision. This government often makes me think of a pirate that has a patch over both eyes, not just one.

200 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/21/23 6:50:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am lucky to be here this evening. Our colleague is pretty funny, but he talked about several very serious topics. He also talked about a very specific issue, housing. What is the Bloc Québécois's solution for addressing the homelessness problem? I am just curious. It would be interesting to hear the perspective of my colleague on that specific issue, seeing as it is the last day of Parliament. I have never actually asked the member the question.

85 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/21/23 6:50:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I commend the work of my colleague. People often say it is a question of supply and demand. Often, the people who talk about supply and demand do not understand the concept. I am not throwing stones at anyone, but that is what it comes down to. What is happening now is that, with the higher salaries and the growing population, the demand for housing has increased significantly. If we allow the price of homes to go up, at some point there will not be housing for everyone because the population is growing. What is more, there are people who now have the means to go live in an apartment who may not have had the means before. We need to work on supply. If we do not work on supply, we are doomed to have shortages because we will not have enough housing to offer to people as demand keeps growing. Demographics are important and they are not being taken into consideration right now. Let us work on supply. That is the best way to ensure that people can have housing, but also that they can afford it.

191 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/21/23 6:52:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for La Prairie for his speech and enthusiasm. I want to ask him this. The Conservatives say that today's motion is their plan for fighting inflation. However, in the past, the Conservative leader presented a plan to fight inflation based in part on the use of cryptocurrency. I do not see any reference to cryptocurrency in this motion. I am wondering why the Conservatives removed this very important pillar from their plan. Could the member for La Prairie comment on that?

90 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/21/23 6:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not support cryptocurrency, which creates inflation. I would like to highlight an important point that I did not previously mention. Introducing a plan to return to balanced budgets will have an impact on the economy and inflation by changing expectations about inflation. Inflation feeds itself. Forecasting inflation is enough to create it and to throw us in an inflationary spiral. Proposing a plan to balance the budget will lower expectations of inflation occurring. This curbs salary increases, which in turn limits inflation.

87 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/21/23 6:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise tonight to speak to the motion that is before us and to say, on behalf of New Democrats, that we do not intend to support this motion, the reason being that New Democrats simply do not believe that one can have a credible plan to fight inflation without addressing the role that outsized price increases by corporations play in contributing to inflation. Not only is there not a plan, but there is not even a mention of the ways in which outsized price increases by corporations are hurting Canadians in the pocketbook. We have heard from economists who have said that as much as 25% of the inflation that Canadians have experienced over the last two years is attributable to those very same corporate price increases. We have seen it in the oil and gas sector, where there have been record profits and, in fact, an increase in extraction. We heard at the finance committee, not that long ago, that, in Canada, we are taking out record numbers of barrels of oil and gas every day in this country. Why is it that this can be happening alongside real economic strife in places like Alberta, where that oil and gas work is happening? It is because we have also seen a significant decrease in the level of employment, due to automation and other advances in technology within the oil fields. We are seeing a decoupling of profitability in the oil and gas sector and employment in the oil and gas sector, which is what really matters for Canadians when it comes to ensuring that the wealth generated through the extraction of our natural resources actually goes to Canadian working-class families. While that can look good in terms of productivity numbers for the industry, depending on how it runs the numbers and depending on its purpose, whether it is reporting to shareholders or whether it is reporting to this place while seeking more subsidies, it is nevertheless the case that, even as the industry continues to extract more, Canadians are benefiting less. That is true from the workers' point of the view and the industry's point of view, but it is also true from the point of view of Canadian consumers because, as those same oil and gas companies that are employing fewer people, even as they take more oil and gas out of the ground, are doing that, they are also raising prices well above the increase in the cost of their inputs. In fact, some of their input costs are going down as they employ fewer Canadians in decent, unionized positions with good-paying wages. That explains how they can be logging record profits, and by record profits, I mean more profit in a single year than the oil and gas industry has ever seen in the history of the country. One would not know that to listen to Conservatives in this place, who say that the oil and gas industry is not doing well. It is very hard to believe that an industry is not doing well when it is producing a record amount of product and it is achieving the highest amount of profit it has ever seen in the history of the country, while charging Canadians higher prices than it ever has before. As much as we hear about the carbon tax, and there is no question that the carbon tax does increase the purchase price of oil and gas, just the simple price increases, the input cost increases that those companies have been experiencing, are more than what the carbon tax is. Do we hear a word from Conservatives about unjustified price hikes by the oil and gas companies, and what that means for Canadians and their pocketbook? No, we do not. That is why this is a party that simply does not have a credible plan to fight inflation. I think there are two different approaches one can take to trying to fight inflation, and I think they mark a significant philosophical difference between the Conservative Party and, ultimately, I would argue, the Liberal government, as well as New Democrats. On the one hand, one can try to increase people's disposable income. We see that through proposals to eliminate the carbon tax and reduce taxes generally. What I find passing strange is that, with respect to providing income support to the poorest Canadians, we know, when they see an increase in their income, that extra money is going to go only to continuing to pay their rent in the same place where they have already been paying rent, or to buy the same groceries they had been buying before but are no longer able to. That is not inflationary money in the economy. That is not driving inflation. Supporting people to be able to still put a meal on the table and pay their rent is not inflationary spending. That is why I am very proud that New Democrats, two times now, have pushed the government to double the GST rebate. We know it is going to households that really need a lot of help in a really difficult time, when they are struggling to afford their rent and they are struggling to afford their food, but it will help in a way that does not cause further inflation, despite what the leader of the Conservatives says. The odd thing is that, when he advocates broad-based tax cuts, like eliminating the carbon tax, he has nothing to say about the inflationary impact of returning that money to households, not just the poorest households, which can be done through mechanisms like a higher GST rebate, but also higher-income households. If the leader of the Conservatives wants to talk about how more money in the economy is going to lead to higher inflation, it is a strange admission. That is not even to mention that the real driver of certain kinds of inflation, when we talk about spending, or what would be if corporations actually spent it in the Canadian economy, which too often they do not, is the corporate taxes that the Conservatives and Liberals have often advocated. That is why there is actually a great meeting of the minds between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to tax policy. It is why they have worked together, from the year 2000 to now, to lower the corporate tax rate from 28% to 15%. What does that mean? It means more spending in the economy, which, if we listen to the leader of the Conservatives, automatically means more inflation. The Conservatives do not talk about how lowering corporate taxes can contribute to inflation. To the extent that it does not, it is because that money leaves the country and actually does not get spent. That is the point that Jim Flaherty, the former Conservative finance minister under Stephen Harper, made before he passed: they had lowered the corporate tax rate, and that was meant to increase business investment and raise productivity. However, as many Conservative members are fond of pointing out, Canada's productivity numbers are not what they should be, and it is not because corporate Canada has not had vast amounts of capital in waiting to make those business investments in order to raise productivity. It is because the companies prefer to either pay it out to their shareholders here in Canada or scuttle that money away into tax havens through agreements that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have made in order to make it easier for that profit to shift out of the country without those corporations ever paying their dues and helping to fund a number of things that are really important in helping Canadians get by in this difficult time. Broad-based tax relief is one way to say we are fighting inflation. I think some of the hazards the leader of the Conservative Party likes to point out about other things, like income support, apply equally to broad-based tax relief at a time like this. We should be conscious of that when we are evaluating proposals for tax decreases. It does not mean that New Democrats oppose all tax decreases. In fact, we were very vocal about the excise tax and our feeling that it was inappropriate for the excise tax to have an automatic escalator, first of all, and that the exceptional increase in the excise tax this year, because of inflation, was not acceptable. We worked with opposition parties to oppose that, and, ultimately, although the government did not bring it down to zero, it dramatically reduced the excise tax increase with the budget implementation act. The other way to combat inflation, which, for my money, is more effective, is to try to control the price of things Canadians cannot do without. What do I mean by that? I mean bringing down the cost of child care, because that puts money back in Canadians' pockets. It makes it easier for Canadians who want to work in order to support their family to be able to leave the home and do that work. We all know that this disproportionately affects women who want to have a career. They can do that because they can now access child care at a price that makes it so they do not work simply to pay for child care instead of contributing to the other meaningful expenses of a household. With respect to a pharmacare program, we need to mobilize the power of bulk purchasing across the country and bring down the price of prescription drugs considerably. There have been so many studies done on pharmacare, going back decades. All of them conclude that, by having one federal program, we could significantly reduce the amount Canadians pay for prescription drugs. There is no question about it. It is why pharmaceutical companies hate the idea. It is why they have spent so much money lobbying the government to stop it. Unfortunately, they have done that far too successfully, and it is why New Democrats are here to continue pushing and to provide the political will to drown out the lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, because we know that, through good public policy, we can reduce the amount Canadians pay for drugs. That ensures not only that they get extra income, but also that corporations cannot just take that income by raising their prices, which is what has been happening in the oil and gas industry. It is what has been happening in the grocery industry. If people want proof of that, they need look no further than today's news, where Canada Bread Company has admitted to price fixing with Weston Foods. The company paid a $50-million fine after having pleaded guilty. What about the other companies that were involved in that, and what about Canadians who have been looking at food prices over the last two years? People know very well that many companies have been raising their prices over and above the additional cost to the companies, whether it is for oil and gas to heat their home or it is for their groceries. I think we all have a legitimate suspicion that Canadians have not been treated fairly by corporate Canada. With respect to creating more disposable income, Conservatives love to say that if the government taxes corporations, they are just going to pass that on to the consumer. If it cuts Canadians' taxes, corporations are just going to raise their prices. Does that mean we are stuck and that there is no hope and no way forward? No, it does not, because through good public policy we can reduce the cost of child care in a way that means people cannot just up the price, because we are regulating the fees and we are providing subsidy to make sure the organizations offering child care are not doing it at an exorbitant price. It is why New Democrats have a very clear and stated preference for non-profit delivery in child care, because we think that once we incorporate that profit motive, we are exposing Canadians to the very same greedy taking that we have seen in the oil and gas sector, in the grocery sector and elsewhere. That is the way. If we can control the cost of something that people cannot do without, that puts more money back in people's pockets in such a way that it cannot just be taken back out again. It is why I supported the Manitoba Public Utilities Board, for instance, which has been very successful, over decades, in regulating the price of auto insurance and Manitoba Hydro. Interestingly, it is a body that the current Conservative Government of Manitoba has been trying to wreck, and to impede from doing its job of looking closely at requested price hikes by these crown corporations. It is ironic, given that one would think it would be the Conservatives most of all who would want a hawkish oversight agency to be looking at crown corporations and ensuring fair pricing. However, in fact, they are undermining the Public Utilities Board. I think it is important. We could actually use something like that nationally for the price of oil and gas, to ensure that when Canadians are going to the pumps or when they are heating their home, they can be assured that they are getting a fair shake on the price, and that the fact that it is the long weekend would not dictate whether they have a hole in their budget at the end of the month. It is why dental support is important. With dental insurance, we can ensure that people are getting a service which they otherwise would not get at all. We know that, too often, because of people's socio-economic status, they have not been able to access dental care. For those who have been able to pay, this means they are going to be able to get more service without simply seeing corresponding hikes in prices. New Democrats have a very settled opinion on what the way to fight inflation is: through good public policy and public investment so Canadians are working together and co-operating to provide the essentials of life and create more room for disposable income in their household budgets, instead of simply cutting taxes for everyone. Cutting taxes for everyone disproportionately benefits the most wealthy and then makes it harder to provide services for everyone, and it runs all the same risks of inflationary pressure on the economy that the leader of the Conservative Party is so concerned about when it involves public funds. Here is another way in which that matters, and another way in which there is a very close resemblance between, for instance, the housing policy of the Liberal government and the housing policy of the Conservative Party. Neither one is willing to call out the role of corporate greed in housing. The leader of the Conservatives sometimes, maybe, kind of makes a passing allusion to it but is quick to say that somehow it is the fault of government. The housing market is working exactly how it was set up to work in the mid-1990s, with the blessing of Liberals and Conservatives. They decided they wanted to make it more of a financial market. They wanted a commodity-based approach to housing. That has been working. The national housing strategy, frankly, has been largely a joke in terms of increasing supply for affordable housing, and it has done nothing to impede the kind of harmful investment behaviour we see in the market. The Conservatives are not proposing to do anything about that. The idea that, by simply balancing the government's books, we are going to see a significant change in the housing market or houses becoming more affordable is a joke. That is not how this is going to go. There are very deep pockets that do not rely on anything the government does in order to be able to spend in the real estate economy, acquire houses and acquire apartment blocks. Where is the leader of the Conservatives when we talk about the travesty of buildings like Lions Manor on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg, which used to provide affordable housing? It has just been acquired, not with government money, but by a giant corporate landlord that came in, bought the building and is evicting the tenants. One does not have a serious strategy to fix the problem of housing in Canada if one cannot criticize the corporate sector and the role that it is playing in jacking up the price of housing. It cannot be done. It is not serious. Then we look at things that the previous Conservative government did to put money in the pockets of corporate Canada, never mind the corporate tax decreases, which were substantial. The Conservatives sold the plans for the CANDU reactor, which was world-leading technology. They love to talk about nuclear, but do members know that they sold that to SNC-Lavalin for pennies on the dollar? It was $75 million, but it came with a bunch of tax benefits and other things. I think they sold it for a final net cost of about $15 million. I do not know what it costs to build a CANDU reactor, but I know that it is measured in billions and not millions to get the intellectual property behind that. Before the Harper government, it actually belonged to Canadians, so that when somebody decided to build a nuclear reactor on the CANDU model anywhere in the world, Canadians could benefit. I think that is a real travesty. It is just an example of how the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals when it comes to stuffing the pockets of corporate Canada at the expense of Canadians. I am mindful of a leader who does actually have so many policy similarities to the Liberal government. I could go on about that. I recall that, in the fall of 2021, when the leader of the Conservative Party was their finance critic, we were having a debate about the mandate of the Bank of Canada. Its mandate is to fight inflation, and it has been for a long time; it is to keep inflation at a 2% target. We talked about what the impact of maintaining that mandate would have on Canadians if we saw higher interest rates. We said that if that was the only thing the Bank of Canada was going to do, it would jeopardize strong employment by raising interest rates to get inflation under control. It would put Canadians in jeopardy of losing their homes by raising interest rates in order to combat inflation, instead of having a more nuanced mandate, as many central banks around the world do. They keep an eye on strong employment and the effect of rising interest rates on the ability of folks to stay in their homes and to keep making payments on their mortgages. The current leader of the Conservative Party was very clear at that time. He wanted the mandate to stay narrowly on the 2% inflation target; that was it. What did the Liberals do? They acquiesced. I was on a panel with them, shot out in the foyer, at the time. I remember, because when I said that actually the Liberals had done everything he said he wanted them to do, he mused about legal action against me for having shown the very direct link between the Liberal Party's actions and the Conservative Party's advice. I said that it would be a bad day for Canadians if we did experience inflation, because the Bank of Canada would raise interest rates and put them out of their homes. Let us not pretend that the leader of the Conservative Party has not played a very important role in keeping the Bank of Canada on a mandate that is causing these increased interest rate hikes. It is not the only thing, but the fact that it does not have a more nuanced mandate is a product of his advice and the actions of the Liberal Party. Canadians are not benefiting from the kind of nuance that has been built into other central banks' mandates. That is why I stand here today to say that there are more ways to fight inflation than what the Conservatives have put in here. In fact, what they have put in here goes squarely against New Democrats' approach to fighting inflation. New Democrats' approach has everything to do with putting money back in the pockets of Canadians but doing it by ensuring that all the things that they have to buy, such as child care, prescription drugs, dental care, housing, are actually brought down, instead of what we see in the motion today. That is just to cut those programs in order to balance the government's books.

3507 words