So V ote

Nov/21/23 5:35:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my House leader for making this point again. This is basic economics. Are there any economists in the Liberal Party? Do they understand these notions? The government often gives the impression of nickel-and-diming, but by trying to save the grant part of the loan, it could cause so many bankruptcies and have such a wide-ranging impact that it could end up being more detrimental to society and the government's finances. When we discuss this informally with ministers, most of them agree with us. The problem is with the Minister of Finance. In that regard, I want to highlight the great work by my colleague from Terrebonne, who wrote the finance minister to make her aware of this. She also reminded her that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously demanded a one-year extension of the loan repayment deadline on September 26, well before this November economic statement that the minister just presented. Why are elected officials of all stripes in Quebec City asking for this? It is because they are just that little bit more connected to their community. They talk to their SMEs, they meet with them and they are worried about them. Like us, they are able to do the math and come to the conclusion that, even if the aim is to save a little money, there is a risk of losing a lot more in the end. Moreover, it will destabilize the economy. Really, the economic statement was the place for this kind of announcement. This is another missed opportunity, another disappointment. It is more proof that this government has grown out of touch, very out of touch, with the people and with SMEs.

285 words

Nov/21/23 5:34:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question and his kind words. It is always a pleasure to see that we can collaborate in the House. The purpose of an economic statement is to respond to emergencies. The hon. member, whom I congratulate on his excellent French, just raised an urgent matter. This measure was adopted six months ago and needs to be implemented. People living with a disability, especially in the inflationary context we are experiencing, need to receive the help that was promised. This has to be done and the economic statement was the place to implement this measure. The statement is there to respond to emergencies and this is another emergency that has been raised. The government had the opportunity to do this, but it did not take it. The government is disconnected from the public and does not respond to any emergency. The hon. member just raised another good example.

156 words

Nov/21/23 5:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, inflation is affecting everyone, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society. It is really worrisome. There is nothing in the fall economic statement to counter inflation. There is nothing to deal with it. The Liberals are just whistling past the graveyard. The hon. member spoke about housing. Yes, the government should do more about housing. However, this year, it is making $37 million in cuts to housing. We see that on page 31 of the English version of the economic statement. It shows $37 million being subtracted. The member is talking about funding for co-operative housing. He does not need to explain to me or any member of the Bloc Québécois what co-operative housing is. There is plenty of it in Quebec. We believe in the co-op model. We are always telling the government to do more in the way of social housing, including co-operatives. How much money is the government putting into housing co-operatives this year, in 2023-24? Zero dollars. However, the situation is urgent. How much money is the government putting into housing co-operatives next year, in 2024-25? Again, zero dollars. The situation is urgent. The situation was urgent this summer and last spring. We need to act now. Today, the government should not be making statements and commitments in principle about what it is going to do two, three, four, five or six years down the road. The situation is urgent now. This government is truly out of touch with people's urgent needs.

265 words

Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23

Nov/21/23 5:08:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to remind the House that this is an economic statement. It is not a budget. As we know, a budget sets out the government's policies and presents the legislative, fiscal and budgetary measures required to implement them. An economic statement has a more modest purpose. It is supposed to present the evolution of the economic and fiscal situation since the last budget. What this statement now tells us is that the deficit may change according to the government's forecasts, contrary to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer had calculated, which is worrisome. The statement outlines the government's response to these changes. There is not much there. For example, at the end of the summer, the Prime Minister asked the new President of the Treasury Board to cut $15 billion from various departments in order to balance the budget. They promised to give us an outline by mid-October. That did not happen. We were expecting to see it in the economic statement, but all they are doing is putting things off again without any concrete targets. Another objective has been missed. What is the purpose of an economic statement? It is used to present the measures the government plans to take to deal with the emergencies that have cropped up since the last budget. There have been quite a few emergencies since the last budget. The economy has changed a great deal. There is a lot of struggling and difficulty. The economy is not doing well. Many people are affected by that. We were really expecting the minister to address the major emergencies that have come up since the last budget. Unfortunately, this is such a missed opportunity that we might wonder what the point is in having an economic statement. I will come back to that. There are several emergencies that we could have focused on that were simply not even mentioned in this statement. I will give another example. The first chapter has to do with housing. While we are short on housing and social housing and the situation is desperate, we find out that there will be $37 million in cuts this year. For next year, not one penny more will be added to what was already presented in Bill C‑56 to get rid of the GST on social housing construction. We will have to wait two years to see the $54 million and $1 billion promised for subsequent years to tackle housing. Is that enough when we know that most of that $1 billion is money that was already announced and not spent? It is unfortunate. A few weeks ago, we presented our requests to the minister. What we asked the government to do in the economic statement was to respond to existing emergencies, the urgent situations that we are currently facing. Take, for example, homeless people. As we know, it is starting to get cold outside. This morning, the temperature was below zero. There are people who are sleeping in tents and in the streets. It is truly awful. We are asking the government to do what Quebec did in its fall economic statement and to allocate emergency funding to immediately address homelessness. We want to set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support homeless people in their area and give them the resources they need to do so. There is nothing about that in the economic statement. This is a real emergency that we are dealing with, and yet we have here a government and a minister who are ignoring the real emergencies. There was no response to that request in the economic statement. On the housing front—and I will come back to this in more detail later—we provided the minister with ideas of how to create an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations and set up an interest-free or very low-interest loan program to stimulate the construction of social and affordable rental housing. Our program could be easily implemented and rapidly deployed without costing the government a fortune. The main measure being announced here is that builders who want to develop a real estate project will be allowed, in partnership with their financial institution, to pay only the interest on the loan and will not have to repay the capital until the building is built and sold. While this would improve liquidity somewhat, it is not really something that was asked for by the groups that we heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, for instance. At the end of the day, we do not think it will contribute to building additional housing. Let us just say that the impact of this remains to be seen, and we do not see it in this statement. We know that seniors are in dire straits. With the current inflation rate and what was announced this morning, the consumer price index is not as high as what we have seen over the last few months and the last few quarters, but it is still above 3%. Low-income seniors and seniors in general are struggling, and we need to restore some measure of fairness. The government decided to increase old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. However, since then, with my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, who is our critic for the rights of seniors, we have been saying that fairness must be restored. The increase must start at age 65. People who are struggling need this support, which will not be enough to make up for the lack of indexing to inflation or to the average wage that the program originally offered. Still, it could give seniors a little breathing room in the current inflationary environment. The repayment of CEBA loans is another urgent situation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, chambers of commerce and many organizations representing SMEs are raising the alarm with elected officials in the House and with the government. They are asking that the deadline be extended by another year. These loans were granted during the pandemic, but after the pandemic, SMEs have had to deal with rising inflation and a difficult economic recovery. Many of them are falling further into debt. Now, the government is asking them to repay their loan or they will lose the grant portion. According the the CFIB's numbers, approximately one in five SMEs could go bankrupt if the deadline is not extended. When we asked the minister about that, she said that it would cost too much. No serious studies were done to determine what it would cost the government, the economy as a whole and society if as many as one in five businesses went bankrupt as a result of this. We in the Bloc Québécois are willing to bet that pushing the loan repayment deadline back one year would be much more profitable. It would strengthen the economy in the sense that it would prevent a lot of predictable bankruptcies. A few weeks ago, the Journal de Montréal published an assessment of the risk for each region. My riding, in the north of the Lanaudière region, was particularly at risk, given the minister's refusal to extend the deadline for repayment of CEBA loans by one year. That is very disappointing. We tried and tried to negotiate with the government. We could not get access to the studies it had used to make that decision because, as we understand it, there were no such studies. In the end, the government chose to team up with its natural ally, when we could have come to an agreement in exchange for that condition, which would have greatly helped our SMEs. The government chose to turn its back on struggling SMEs. We can only conclude that the government's ally did not really care about that too much. There are other emergencies. As I said, the purpose of the economic update is to respond to existing emergencies. We can think of our media. Small, local and regional media, newspapers and radio stations are struggling. They are falling one after the other. The situation is catastrophic. Even the bigger media outlets are having a tough time. We do not even know if they are going to make it to Christmas or next summer. The situation is that dire. We saw the sad announcement of upcoming layoffs at Groupe TVA, with more than 500 employees affected. Even the biggest media outlets are struggling to overcome the crisis. We called for an emergency fund for the next few months at least, but that did not happen either. Also, in order to resolve an inequity, we called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. That has not been done either, which is appalling. Let us talk about other extremely important points. Since 2015, this government has been promising a complete overhaul of employment insurance. Once again, it has been postponed indefinitely. A year and a half ago, we were told that it was coming in the spring of 2022. After that, they said it would be no later than that fall. Now there is no mention of it, and nothing has been done. I naively wanted to believe the Liberals' promise. Let that be a lesson to me. Nothing has been done, and now they will not even dare talk about it. Shame on me for believing a Liberal promise. When it comes to EI reform, a specific concern was also raised that once again has to do with the need to respond to emergencies. This summer, there were forest fires everywhere. That means that a lot of seasonal workers in the forestry industry were unable to accumulate enough hours to qualify for EI during the season because they could not work in the forest. We brought this to the minister's attention. This is an emergency and the government needs to be a bit flexible. The government needs to do something and to think about those workers, and yet there is nothing in the economic statement to address this emergency either. We often asked questions in the House, and I personally drew the minister's attention to an issue that my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has been working on. The government announced $1 billion for a school breakfast program for children. The money was promised during the announcement, but it has yet to be delivered so that the program can be implemented. Inflation is high, and more and more children are going to school hungry. It is time for the government to pay out the money it announced. The government could have already dealt with this emergency, but this, too, was not urgent enough for the minister. Many of my colleagues talked to me about regional infrastructure needs. Nothing more is being done. There is also the whole agriculture sector, which was hit by the flooding in some regions this summer. The produce and horticultural sectors are struggling. They are in serious trouble. Could existing programs have been adapted? The economic statement would have been the time to do that but, no, nothing was done. Once again, agriculture was not even mentioned in this statement. There is a slightly technical detail that affects many artisanal businesses throughout our regions that could really change things. As we know, the government increased the excise tax on wine after Australian wine producers sued Canadian wine producers. Regulations on the matter are problematic. In legal texts, everything that is alcohol is called “wine”. The Bloc Québécois managed to get apple cider and mead exempted from the tax. That was a big win, and these producers are grateful. Afterward we realized that if cider producers put a bit of pear in their drink, they have to pay the entirety of the tax. Producers of beverages made from maple alcohol also have to pay the entirety of the tax. As soon as there are a few small fruits in these drinks, producers have to pay the entire tax. It does not bother wine producers in Australia that we help our small artisans who produce these niche products. For two years we have been calling on the minister to settle this. I understand that she is busy, that she is dealing with many challenges, but at some point these are just formalities that need follow-up. This would only help better recognize the artisans without taking anything away from anyone, without frustrating anyone in Australia. It would be easy to do. This could have been implemented in the economic statement, but no, that was not done either and it is really disappointing and upsetting. As I was saying, the government and the minister should have developed an economic statement to respond to the emergencies. I raised a few that have been brought forward by all of my colleagues here. It is not hard. How many of the emergencies we raised did the minister respond to? A big fat zero. I am referring here to a former minister I will talk about and quote. It was a former minister of Prime Minister Trudeau, the father of the actual Prime Minister. I definitely said “actual” and not “actuary”. Speaking of actuaries, let me emphasize that the employment insurance fund surplus has doubled. Once again, workers have to pay to fill the government's coffers. Let us come back to the urban affairs department. What is it? In the economic update, the government has chosen to create a new department, which my leader dubbed the “department of interference” because it deals with housing. It is interference, pure and simple. It is similar to what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did when he created a ministry of urban affairs. Its minister was Mr. Ouellet. That is why I am drawing attention to it. This is a quote from a Library of Parliament research document: Accordingly, in March 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who took on responsibility not only for CMHC but also for a new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA). Given the inescapable constitutional limitations [of interfering with provincial jurisdiction], this ministry had no program responsibilities... Today, the government is bringing this department back. We can see where this is going. The Library of Parliament document continues as follows two paragraphs later: This...eventually led to the downfall of Trudeau's intervention in federal-municipal relations. A bit further on, it reads, and I quote: In view of the Department's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the MSUA was abolished on 31 March 1979. Is that what awaits us with the creation of the new department announced in this economic update? As my colleagues have said, that is definitely what we can expect. Let us talk about some other aspects of the economic statement. Over the past few weeks, we have been seeing a squabble play out between the Liberal government and the Conservatives in the House. The Conservative Party is all about slogans and is always pointing out problems. The Conservatives made a suggestion on housing. What is it? It involves punishing the municipalities and the provinces. The Conservatives are saying that, if the municipalities do not build 15% more housing units, then the federal government should hold back infrastructure funding. For example, this year, housing starts in Quebec decreased by half. That means that, were the Conservative Party in power, it would have cut the province's infrastructure funding by half. They are real winners, as my colleague said. The Liberal government's response to this proposal is to use it themselves. In the statement, it is clear that they are using the same approach. In other words, they are threatening the provinces and, indirectly, the municipalities. The statement says that if they do not build enough housing, transfers will be cut off. My goodness, does the Liberal government want to go back to the Stone Age, too? I wonder. There is one good measure involving Airbnb. The government wants to bring it in line with municipal regulations. It is going to be difficult to enforce, but there is hope. I am not simply criticizing everything. That is a good measure. As I was saying about the $15 billion in budget cuts, it was supposed to happen in October. However, the plan hatched by the government and the President of the Treasury Board is not even mentioned in the November statement. As I was also saying, we brought up a number of urgent matters, but none of them have been resolved here. There is no plan for dealing with the emergencies. Clearly, the Liberals do not understand what an emergency is. I will say it again: Each and every one of the Bloc's demands and the urgent needs expressed by Quebeckers has been ignored. Clearly, this government, this Prime Minister and the finance minister are confusing fiscal restraint with inaction when it comes to emergencies. It is all going to cost us more in the end. Again, the purpose of an economic update is to take stock of the economic situation since the presentation of the budget and announce solutions for the emergencies we know about. This statement does not address the many changes and does not fix anything. This is such a missed opportunity that we wonder why the government even bothered. Thanks to the Liberals, things will get worse before they hopefully get better.

2960 words

Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22

Jun/16/23 10:43:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would really enjoy visiting my colleague's wonderful riding. I think that the plan to establish a global minimum tax rate is a good solution. I think people were waiting for the OECD or the G20 to endorse it before they moved ahead with implementation. In my view, the fact that the Biden administration is using its influence could help the proposal pick up steam. As far back as 2009, after the last economic crisis, the President of France at the time, Sarkozy, said that playtime was over. Since then, nothing has changed. It will take something big for words to turn into action. Maybe this time is the right time. Even though 15% is not enough, it is a step in the right direction.

128 words

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Nov/18/22 10:41:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He just went over the whole inflation problem. The word “inflation” appears in the fall economic update 108 times. We know that in contrast to the previous budget, there are no new measures. It is just a rehash. It uses different rhetoric to justify the same measures. The government is rightly concerned that a recession could hit this winter. As far as the recession is concerned, the Bloc Québécois is asking for employment insurance to be reformed as soon as possible so it is ready to go. The government was supposed to have it in place for last summer, but the system still has not been reformed. We would not want to have to create a CERB 2.0 to limit the damage and make up for a failing EI system. Why was this reform not included in Bill C‑32?

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 124 - Nov/3/22

Nov/17/22 12:37:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In the government's fall economic statement, the word “inflation” appears 108 times. However, when we look at the measures announced in the economic statement, we see that it is essentially implementing the measures that were in the last budget. Apart from rhetoric, the government is not contributing to the response to current inflation and the risk of recession. We at the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to refocus on its core missions to better support the most vulnerable, namely by increasing old age security from age 65 on, increasing health care funding and reforming EI. This government seems to identify the current economic crises, but does not appear to propose any new measures. What does my colleague think of that?

137 words

Context: House Hansard - 105 - Sep/29/22

Nov/3/22 5:51:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. The short answer is “yes”. I would also like to point out that he asked his question entirely in French. I congratulate him and thank him for that. As Radio-Canada reminded us this week, Canada provides the second-highest oil subsidies in the G20. That is unacceptable. I have been in the House since 2015, and this government has been saying since that time that it will end subsidies to oil companies. As with so many other issues, this government talks the talk but does not walk the walk. In the economic statement, the government refers to a measure it introduced last spring concerning a deduction for green energy. However, this measure is aimed at the private sector, not the public sector. In addition, small modular reactors are considered green energy. These are small nuclear power plants on wheels that extract oil from the oil sands. The government will be using taxpayers' money to support that. These are its environmental policies, and I am very concerned about them.

181 words

Context: House Hansard - 100 - Sep/22/22

Sep/29/22 5:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for the question, although when he mentioned the second CEGEP, I realized he was talking about UQAM. That is a serious mistake. I would have him know that the economics department at UQAM does good work. Keynes' work certainly contributed to the establishment and creation of the first central banks and highlighted their importance. The other thing that came out of his work is the famous equation for the quantity theory of money. It does not happen automatically and instantaneously. It depends on several other factors. Keynes particularly drew attention to the perceptions or psychology of people and economic players in the phenomenon of inflation. For example, the U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency. If a lot of money is printed, prices will rise much more slowly than in an economy where the currency is weaker, where foreign investors have less confidence in their currency. If they deviate slightly from established practice, prices can soar because confidence is lost more quickly in those economies. The central bank plays an important role, and it is important to respect its autonomy.

189 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 90 - Jun/16/22

Sep/22/22 5:10:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph for his comments and his question. I quite agree with the issues he raised. The global economic outlook is uncertain, especially considering the central banks' fight against inflation and the entire context that I referred to. Most economists expect there will be a recession in Europe, especially with the war in Ukraine, which is having serious consequences there. It will be very difficult to get out of. China is also experiencing a major economic slowdown. The unemployment rate among young people is especially high in the major cities. It is very concerning because China is still the workshop of the world, or at least a major production centre. Then there is Canada and the United States. What will happen? We expect a slowdown. The latest figures are less encouraging. In the meantime, I believe that the labour market is going through a transformation, and comparing current job market statistics with the ones from a few years ago is tough. We have to be very alert and careful for the next steps.

179 words

Context: House Hansard - 41 - Mar/4/22

Jun/16/22 7:23:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the economic situation is out of control. People are worried about inflation, and rightly so. For instance, gas is at $2.24 a litre today in my riding, Joliette. This is devastating. The hardest hit are obviously low-income families whose obligations force them to drive a lot. The current reality is also really tough for businesses in certain sectors such as transportation, of course, as well as agriculture. Rising prices will help the energy transition in the long term, but will increase misery in the short term. The cost of housing is no more encouraging. Finding available affordable housing has become mission impossible. The price of houses and condos has exploded. However, according to experts, rising food prices could soon overtake energy and housing prices by a wide margin. The world is at risk of a food shortage this year, which will lead to skyrocketing prices and a serious global famine. The current situation is in large part a result of the war in Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are the world's breadbasket. These two countries account for 30% of global wheat exports and 20% of global corn exports. They also export 65% of the world's sunflower oil. Russia has significantly cut back on its exports so that it can continue to feed its citizens at the same cost. As for Ukraine, its existing reserves are difficult to export, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about potential future harvests. Food prices in Ukraine are skyrocketing, and Ukrainians could be facing a famine. For example, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, around half of the wheat reserves and nearly 40% of the rye in Ukraine are in war-affected areas. The damage caused by the war will reduce grain reserves and limit production and cultivated acreage for years to come. The damage to infrastructure makes it difficult to get humanitarian aid to Ukraine and to transport the resources that can still be saved. According to the World Bank, global agricultural commodity prices rose 41% between January and May and are still rising. During the same period, the price of corn jumped 54%, and the price of wheat jumped 60%. With its current budgets, the UN World Food Programme cannot feed as many people. Also according to the FAO, war and climate change are the main causes of global food insecurity, in Ukraine and elsewhere. It predicts that 44 countries will require food aid in 2022, particularly in West and East Africa due to conflicts in those regions, food commodity prices, and crop failures. Faced with the expected risk of food shortages, several countries have begun halting exports in order to strategically prioritize their own people. For instance, India stopped exporting its wheat, and then Indonesia halted palm oil exports. This food protectionism could trigger a domino effect with even more tragic consequences. Here, as elsewhere, production costs will soar, because the price of inputs has also exploded. For example, fertilizers come mostly from Russia and Belarus. Their prices had increased even before the war. Now they have doubled or tripled. What is more, this government is still imposing a 35% tax on them, even though they were ordered and paid for before the invasion of Ukraine. The rising cost of diesel fuel must also be taken into account. When economist Sylvain Charlebois appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance last month, the agri-food market expert said that supply chain issues are making it difficult for farmers to plan. Their inputs are not consistently available. He also reminded the committee that last summer, western Canada, the United States and Russia experienced major droughts, while Germany experienced major flooding. The result of all this was that the 2021 crops were so poor that reserves are currently low. They were counting on 2022 to replenish their reserves, but with the war, that will not be possible. The economist also added that it was not possible to increase cropland acreage in the short term. However, he did say that the spring flooding in Manitoba is not expected to have much of an impact on the harvest, as it delayed seeding by only a few weeks. All that adds up to significantly higher food prices in the coming months, much higher than what we are seeing now. For example, Germany is expecting grocery prices to increase by an average of 50%. Food will be 50% more expensive. It should be less than that in Quebec and Canada. That is how it is likely to play out in rich countries. People in poor countries will likely face famine, which is why international institutions are calling for greater solidarity, especially seeing as less wealthy countries were encouraged to go into debt to get through the pandemic more easily. As a result, they are now deep in debt and will not likely have the means to import enough food at high prices. Add to that the fact that many of them are already subsidizing basic foods to make sure their citizens can feed themselves. These countries will have to import food at high prices even as they spend more of their budget on food subsidies. African countries are particularly vulnerable. A significant portion of crops are now traded on the stock exchange. For example, a future crop can be sold in advance and traded several times on the stock exchange. This practice can drive up the price of commodities for speculative purposes. It is a bit like oil. People take advantage of the context to drive prices up and line their pockets. This situation is a reminder of the limits of using markets. The situation is such that food will be a major problem this year and for years to come. According to a partner with the firm McKinsey, even with an optimistic view of the crisis, things are unlikely to return to normal before 2024. The food crisis will require an exemplary demonstration of international solidarity. It also reminds us that war always has a greater impact than anticipated. Let us hope that a peaceful resolution will be negotiated to end this war, primarily for the sake of the Ukrainian people, but also to limit the effects of a food crisis that has already begun. We have an obligation to show solidarity to combat hunger on a global scale. We also need to do more to support our farmers. Finally, we must do more to ensure global peace and do our part to limit climate change. I hope this government is taking notes right now.

1104 words

All Topics