- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Scarborough—Guildwood
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $111,926.23
- Government Page
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
- Feb/1/22 3:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that so many colleagues remained behind in order to hear my great thoughts on the Speech from the Throne. It is very kind of them. I appreciate that. I do take note that a few are heading for the exits.
The point that I was making prior to question period had to do with interest rates and that the Bank of Canada's governor had indicated that there would be movement on the interest rates. Therefore, the ultralow rates that we have had and enjoyed, indeed, for the last number of months and years are likely to end, with significant consequences.
I also take note that the Government of Canada has locked in a lot of its debt in ultralow extensive securities, so that in and of itself will reduce the cost of interest.
The third point I want to make is that a significant number of the major support programs instituted by the House and by the government over the last year and months were terminated on October 23, and that is a significant reduction in the fiscal stimulus that was in the economy. There is no question. The debt to GDP has gone from 29% to 49% over the course of the pandemic, as the Government of Canada used its fiscal firepower to alleviate the genuine suffering of the people of Canada.
I would just like to point out in passing that eight out of every 10 pandemic dollars were spent by the federal government, in part because the fiscal situation of the federal government is arguably the strongest of any G7 nation. We used that fiscal firepower in order to alleviate the suffering of Canadians, largely supported in the House may I say, but it did contribute to the rise in debt. Provincial governments, on the other hand, had no significant rise in their debt to GDP, so the financial burden of the pandemic thus far has largely rested on the shoulders of the federal government.
The fifth point is the interesting contradiction with the low unemployment rate in Canada. I know this was subject to some discussion during question period. Members will recollect that, as the pandemic began, the rate shot up to, I think, 13%. It is now below 6% and in some jurisdictions even lower than that.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you and I and everyone else in the House are fairly fresh off asking people questions at the door and getting responses, but businesses are desperately looking for workers. Every time we talk to anybody who is an employer, we hear that their biggest problem is just getting qualified workers. In fact, all kinds of incentives and all kinds of training are needed just to get workers. Hence, that has led to a significantly low unemployment rate.
The seventh point has been this discussion about supply chains. There is no question that the supply chains have been disrupted. This is actually a pretty significant problem because the policy of all governments, all western nations, has been that they will go to the cheapest possible supply source. That, in turn, has led to vulnerabilities in our supply chain, and those vulnerabilities in turn have been shown to be very serious during a pandemic crisis. We will hear a lot of conversation about reshoring, shortening the supply chains, etc. I would encourage that.
While we are encouraging that, I would put in a plug for my private member's bill on modern-day slavery, and we will have the opportunity to eliminate slavery from our supply chain.
I see from your body language, Madam Speaker, that you seem to think that I should be finishing this speech. Because you are the Speaker and because I respect the traditions of the House, I will yield and I look forward to the members' questions.
643 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/22 1:56:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me say, first off, that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek. Whatever time I do have, I will leave for her.
This is my first opportunity to thank the people of Scarborough—Guildwood for my re-election. This will be my 24th year in the House of Commons, nine elections. Some may question the sanity of the citizens of Scarborough—Guildwood, but I am quite grateful.
I am also grateful to the small army of volunteers who have helped me over the years to be here and to represent the people of Scarborough—Guildwood. For some apparent reason they seem to think I continue to do a decent job, and I hope to continue to work for their faith.
I know it is always a dangerous thing to thank individuals, but I want to particularly recognize the work of Layla, Meena and Atik; Natasha and Mark; and Napas, all of whom worked 24-7 for the entire election period. Of course this was a pretty challenging election for all of us. We had to do things differently.
Finally, far from least, I want to thank my wife Carolyn, who has been at my side for the last 24 years, actually far more than these 24 years. She is an amazing woman with amazing accomplishments, and probably the most amazing thing of all is that she continues to love me and be married to me. I know we are all grateful for miracles.
I originally started to write out these thoughts in November, because that is when the reply to the Speech from the Throne started. Here we are six to eight weeks later. I looked over my notes the other day, and they are somewhat irrelevant at this point. In part this is because, if it is said that a week is a long time in politics, in truth two months is even longer, so I have had to do a rewrite. Indeed, the pandemic has changed everything. I want to just turn to the topic at hand and concentrate on the issues of the economy. I hope to add a little bit more light than heat, but that is not always true in this chamber.
I have noted a lot of discussion about inflation, something in the order of 4.8% last month. In the United States it is 7%. There is this endless conversation about whether we are better than the OECD average or poorer than the OECD average. The comparators become a little meaningless over time, but the reality is that this is a worldwide phenomenon. Canada, as a large trading nation where 40% of our GDP is dependent on trade, is particularly vulnerable to the economic currents outside of its borders. For the time being at least, inflation will be a reality and a preoccupation of this government and, indeed, any government.
The second point I wanted to make, assuming I have a little bit of time, is on the issue of interest rates. Currently, rates are quite low, but I was gratified to hear the Bank of Canada's governor indicate that it is going to be addressed and he is on the way to addressing that. I personally would have preferred a little action a little bit sooner, because I too was consumed with the grocery aisle indicators of inflation.
I look forward to expanding on these profound thoughts. I know my hon. colleagues will wait in their seats to hear what I have to say after question period
600 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
