- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Scarborough—Guildwood
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $111,926.23
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, of course it could have been tabled earlier. Whether that would have been a wise tabling, I do not really know.
This is part of an array of initiatives on the part of the Government of Canada to mitigate the complaints we are all hearing. There is not a member in this House who has not heard about the inflationary pressures on our constituents, so as part of an entire array, I think this bill is a worthy initiative. The fiscal policy is being handled as well as it can be handled, with maybe a slow start on monetary policy. I still think the Bank of Canada is moving forward on that front as well.
When taken together, the array of measures and initiatives on the part of the government writ large is an appropriate response to a worldwide phenomenon on a relatively small economy, and hopefully—
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the benefit of being here a long time is that this seems to be a go-to position of my friends on the left.
There is an excess profits tax. All of these companies the member is complaining about, if they fall within the band of excess profits, will be taxed directly for that. I take note, as he did, of the excess profits tax for banks and insurance companies. There will be a gathering of revenues. I also take note that lately, primarily because of the low unemployment rate, the government's revenues have been quite robust, again speaking to the point that the government's management of its finances has been quite exemplary.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as members know, I have been here for a long time, some might say too long, and every government that has ever been here in that time has always said there are savings to be found over here, over there, etc. What the hon. member is describing is very difficult work. It is an ongoing process, and I do anticipate that the Minister of Finance has been doing it.
On the first part of his question, I will quote an economist, an Atkinson fellow. I better not pronounce the name or I will mess it up. She wrote, “In truth the measures are so modest, [at] only $3.2 billion”. The impact on the economy is very modest.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30 and add my voice to this. I hope I am bringing a bit more light than heat, because I have been listening here for a while and there seems to be a lot of heat but I am not sure how much light there is in it.
I am splitting my time with my favourite colleague from Toronto—Danforth. I look forward to what she has to say and possibly look forward more to what she has to say than to what I have to say.
I also want to extend my concerns to our colleagues and the people of Nova Scotia and the Maritimes generally for what they are facing this weekend.
I cannot help but make the observation of dissonance between what this chamber, particularly on the Conservative side of things, says and the realities of climate change. How many once-in-a-lifetime events do we have to have every year before we realize that climate change is among us? We have been watching the floods in Pakistan. We have been watching the fires out in western Canada and watching California literally burn down. We express sympathy for that. We rush in as best we can to repair the damage after the fact. However, we fail to deal with the fundamental issue that is before us, which is the reality of climate change.
Therefore, the most practical solution is to apply a cost to the carbon that we all put in the air. We all put it into the air, yet we are extremely resistant to doing anything about it. I just want to make that as an observation. There is a dissonance between the way we talk about climate change and the climate emergency, and the willingness to actually make the sacrifices that are necessary in the form of some form of taxation or costing, in order to be able to mitigate the costs.
However, this is a discussion about Bill C-30. It is a bill that, it looks like, enjoys virtually unanimous support in the House. It is one of a suite of measures that the government is taking to fight inflation. I am kind of amused by that language: fighting inflation. I am sure inflation is just scared that the Government of Canada, the governments of the provinces or any government is fighting it, because inflation is what inflation is.
I have found that the members opposite are really quite elegant and eloquent in describing the problem, which is the high cost of groceries, the high cost of fuel, the high cost of rent, etc., and are very able to do that. I have heard it in my own riding. I have found that the answers that I give in my own riding do not resonate. When I say that it is partly due to Putin's war, the response of my constituents is “we do not care”. When I say it is difficulties with supply chains, my constituents say, “we do not care”. When it is having to do with various other causes, my constituents just do not care. The reality is that they want me, us, the government, to do something.
The government actually has a limited array of things that it can do to fight inflation. The first one, of course, is monetary policy. This is generally where everyone nods off who is not already asleep because monetary policy is possibly the most boring thing ever. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your getting an extra coffee before I rose to speak.
Monetary policy is essentially run by the Government of Canada. Years ago, the government made a very wise decision to take monetary policy out of this chamber, out of the political vicissitudes of the day, according to whatever the government or the Parliament of the day thought should be done with monetary policy, so that is run independently.
Some of us can criticize the Bank of Canada, and some members of the opposition in particular seem to be very enthusiastic about criticizing the operation of monetary policy. I could even make the argument that it started to raise interest rates a little slowly. However, it certainly has done what it can do to raise interest rates and restrict the supply of money.
Doing that, however, has consequences. The consequence is that it slows economic activity, and when we slow economic activity, we create unemployment. That is not a very good outcome for any of us, really. That is the consequence of monetary policy, and it needs to be moved forward.
The previous member talked about the government of Mr. Trudeau in the seventies. I was around in the seventies and remember stagflation. Stagflation meant having the worst of both world: inflation plus a high unemployment rate. Fortunately, we are not there, and possibly we have learned something about the application of monetary policy.
That is the first instrument any government has for dealing with this. It is being executed as well as it can be executed, and there has been some impact in cooling the real estate market.
The second array of the government's abilities is fiscal policy. Notwithstanding what some might say, this government is in relatively good shape with regard to debt-to-GDP ratio. I know we ran the debt-to-GDP ratio up during the COVID era, but there are no free lunches in this world and it will need to be dealt with.
At this point, a couple of things have been done well, one of which is buying long-term debt at low interest rates, so the cost of debt, at this point at least, is limited. We also have a reasonable unemployment rate at this point, so there is full employment and a government that has its fiscal house under control, although I would not say in order. There are challenges in managing that, but still, the fiscal situation is not bad for this country.
The third element of any government's approach to inflation is programs. That is part of what we are talking about with Bill C-30 and the temporary increase in the amount of HST refund for those who qualify, which is primarily people with an income of under $40,000 a year.
In my riding, the Canada child benefit is a huge benefit. It is $100 million a year going into my riding, affecting something in the order of 8,000 of families. The money goes to the people who actually need it the most. Economists can make the argument that we are putting money into the economy and are therefore creating our own level of inflationary pressures. There is some truth to that, but if it is a choice between rent and eating, I am sure my constituents appreciate the Canada child benefit, just as they appreciate the rent subsidy, the carbon rebate and the child care program that is going forward.
These are all programs that a government can put forward. It is a reasoned response to a very difficult situation largely caused from outside the country on a relatively small economy.
1204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not regard my Conservative colleagues as enemies of the state. They are possibly a bit misguided, but they are not in any way or sense an enemy.
I just wondered whether the member regards Bill C-30 as bribing Canadians with their own money.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the House will be interested to know that I am literally in the market for a deck. If one asks for quotes for a deck, one will get price x and then price y for cash. What it speaks to is the number of people who do not file income tax returns and therefore will not benefit from the CPP, EI, the HST increase, the rent supplement, and all that sort of stuff.
I am interested in the hon. member's thoughts with respect to the need for Canadians, particularly low-income Canadians, to file their income taxes so they may benefit from all of these things.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
