So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 252 - Nov/21/23

Nov/23/23 10:49:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her very deep, content-rich question. As I said, Bill C‑56 has some good measures for fighting inflation, but they are just a drop in the bucket. They are inconsequential. Will eliminating the GST on the construction of rental housing lower the price of homes and apartments? The answer is no, far from it. Even the government is unable to tell us how much it expects and by how much the rents could go down. If it has any research or models, it is keeping them well hidden and we cannot get any access to them. It is a principled position. It is limited. We know that improving the Competition Act will help lower prices, but we cannot turn back time. It will help stop or slow down the situation, nothing more. Many other measures need to be taken. Fighting inflation is complex. If the government's response to inflation is just that, then it is lacking. It is a drop in the bucket.

174 words

Context: House Hansard - 182 - Apr/21/23

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 - 171 - Mar/22/23

Apr/21/23 12:42:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, we spent one day in camera studying the budget. We wondered whether there really was an inflationary crisis, a housing crisis and a seniors' purchasing power crisis. It seemed to be a budget created in a vacuum, without any context. One could almost believe that it was generated by ChatGPT based on the last 30 or 40 years. This budget came out of nowhere. We see that in Bill C‑47, too. What is there for social housing or housing? There are 430 pages, and 59 statutes are affected, but there is nothing at all for housing. That is unacceptable.

104 words

Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23

Mar/22/23 8:55:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, I will let the Conservative Party explain its reasons. To answer the question on inflation, there are a number of elements. We can think, in particular, of social housing, which should be better funded. In the budget being tabled by the minister next Tuesday, we hope to see significant funding allocated to social housing to ensure change, even if only at this level. To come back to the excise tax, I hope that my colleague will be able to speak with his cabinet colleagues. We would like to have the same model for microdistilleries as for microbreweries, namely a progressive excise tax to allow small players to enter the market and compete with the giants.

126 words

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

Mar/22/23 8:45:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-19

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. As members know, unlike sales tax, which represents a percentage of the value of a product, the excise tax on alcohol is a fixed amount by volume as set out in the Excise Tax Act. Traditionally, that amount was occasionally reviewed and adjusted to inflation through an amendment to the act. However, since 2017, the act has included an automatic indexing formula, which means that the amount of the excise tax goes up every year based on inflation. That is why the excise tax on alcohol is going to increase by 6.3% on April 1 to reflect the high level of inflation we have seen over the past year. Today's motion will not actually have a very big impact. We are talking about 1¢ per can of beer. This motion is not a real response to the increased inflation that is driving up the price of food in particular. This is a clear example of the populism of the Conservatives who are more interested in coming up with gimmicky slogans than they are in developing serious public policy. Furthermore, when it comes to beer, only large breweries will benefit from the adoption of today's motion. Given that microbreweries only pay a fraction of the excise tax, they will benefit far less from a freeze on the tax rate. Of the 1,200 breweries in Canada, including the more than 300 in Quebec, only 12 pay the full amount of the excise tax on the majority of their production. Most of these 12 breweries are owned by foreign multinationals. The decision to apply a different tax rate to microbreweries, the artisans who are passionate about agri-food living in every region, was implemented in the 2006 budget after the Bloc Québécois advocated for it for years. The Bloc Québécois has been fighting for our microbreweries for a long time. That decision would give them the opportunity to compete against the giants of the industry, whose production costs are much lower thanks to economies of scale. Since the implementation of the preferential rate, the number of microbreweries has skyrocketed and increased eightfold to our great pleasure. For a small artisanal microbrewery, indexing the amount of the excise tax might only represent a 0.1¢ or 0.2¢ increase per can. We are talking about that very small amount today. This means that when we buy a 12-pack of beer, we would pay an additional amount of just a little over 1¢. In budget implementation Bill C‑19 from spring 2022, the Bloc Québécois managed to extend to cider and mead producers the same support that had been extended to microbreweries 15 years ago. They are now completely exempt from the excise tax. Our support for small local producers is not limited to microbreweries. Unfortunately, since the government has a very restrictive definition of cider and mead, the producers who flavour their products with berries and aromatics continue to pay the tax. That is something we really hope to see resolved in the next budget, just like the application of the tax on wine made from other fruit such as pears, blueberries or even maple, which showcases our land. They should be treated the same way as our apple cider producers. For hard alcohol, we are talking about an increase of roughly 25¢ for a 750-millilitre bottle. Again, we are not talking about a catastrophic increase, but it adds to the overall price increases. With respect to spirits, frankly, the Bloc Québécois would have preferred that the Conservatives propose applying to microdistilleries the model that is already in place for microbreweries and impose only a fraction of the tax that is required of the industry giants. That would have a much greater impact. It would come down to about $3 per bottle rather than the meagre 25¢ that is being discussed today, but it would apply only to our small local producers. We hope the government listens carefully to what the Bloc Québécois is saying and will take it into account in its budget next Tuesday. Our small producers are suffering, struggling to compete with the industry giants. As I said before, they would benefit greatly from a more targeted measure. Unfortunately, that is not what today's motion proposes. It has very little impact on consumers. On every one of their opposition days, the Conservatives come back with their mantra: We need to lower taxes, cut EI by lowering the premium rate, cut retirement income by lowering the pension contribution—which also has an impact in Quebec, because the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan are harmonized. They keep coming back to the idea of eliminating pollution pricing to pander to the oil companies. Today's motion, while not intrinsically bad, is along the same lines and does not represent a real plan to fight inflation. We are talking about 1¢ for a can of beer or 25¢ for a $40- or $50-bottle of spirits. This is not the end of the world, especially considering that alcohol represents only 4% of the average household's market basket. Skyrocketing housing and food prices are crushing Quebeckers and Canadians, especially those living on modest or fixed incomes. Measures that address the causes and effects of inflation would be much more useful than today's motion, which will have an essentially marginal impact on consumers. However, we do recognize that it could have a greater impact on restaurant and bar owners, who have been profoundly affected by the COVID‑19 crisis. As members are well aware, the Excise Act does not just determine the amount of the excise tax. It also determines the terms and conditions for the sale of alcohol. Along with the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, it states that only the government of a province can import or distribute alcohol. Quebec or the province can delegate that responsibility to a private importer or distributor by granting them a licence, but the province holds the exclusive power to govern the importation and trade of liquor on its territory. The fact that international trade is an area of federal jurisdiction is incongruous, and I am going to talk briefly about the history behind that. Canada's first referendum took place in 1898. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many Protestant churches, particularly Baptist churches, were strongly advocating for the prohibition of alcohol. These prohibitionist movements were active in the United States and English Canada, just like in Lucky Luke. The Canadian plebiscite on the prohibition of alcohol, which was held on September 29, 1898, was on the passage of a law prohibiting the importation, production and sale of alcoholic beverages across Canada. This law on prohibition would have taken the form of an amendment to the Criminal Code. The yes camp won by 51.2% to 48.8%. It was a tight vote, but the yes camp won. However, the referendum exposed an important cultural divide in Canada. Every province except Quebec voted yes, but opposition to prohibition in Quebec was massive: 81.2% of the population voted against it, as they did in the case of conscription. The opposition was not only massive, but it was also very acrimonious. The members from Quebec in the House of Commons stated that they could not vote for a prohibition law because their families and communities would never forgive them. The prime minister at the time, Wilfrid Laurier, noted that there was a cultural divide between Quebec and English Canada on this issue. He felt that the federal Parliament did not have the legitimacy to legislate, which would amount to imposing the decision of the majority on the minority that wanted nothing to do with it—the French Canadians at that time—even though it had the constitutional power to do so. I hope the government is taking notes. It must not take unilateral action, and it should tell every province and Quebec to manage their own jurisdiction. That is how it was during the first years of Confederation. Instead of introducing legislation imposing prohibition across Canada, it chose to amend the laws on the importation and trade of alcohol and leaving it up to the provinces to regulate. That is why still today that responsibility falls to the provinces. Of course, this creates some inconsistencies, such as the ban on transporting alcohol from one province to another, which prohibits a resident of Ottawa from bringing home a bottle that he may have purchased at the liquor store in Quebec. However, the principle is interesting: If there is a difference between Quebec and Canada on a given topic, then the federal Parliament should refrain from imposing a blanket solution that applies indiscriminately from coast to coast to coast. I hope that the government and my colleagues from English Canada are listening carefully to this history lesson. I hope they will draw from it and stop imposing the will of Canada on Quebec when there is a difference of opinion, and delegate the powers. To my colleagues, I would say, “a word to the wise”.

1573 words

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

Nov/18/22 1:13:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to talk to him about the rhetoric coming from the party in power. In the spring budget, the government said that the supply chain issue needed to be addressed, but no measure was proposed. In the fall economic statement, it is the same thing. It talks about supply chains, but no concrete measure is proposed to deal with the issue. The government is doing the same thing again with the issue of inflation. The word “inflation” comes up 108 times in the economic statement, but there is no new measure other than the ones that we already voted on in the House this fall or that were announced in the spring budget. Would the hon. member agree that there is a disparity between the rhetoric and the actions that are actually taken?

146 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 - 124 - Nov/3/22

Nov/3/22 5:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying how excited my colleagues and I were this morning to get a look at this important economic statement behind closed doors. As we read through the opening pages, we felt hopeful. We thought the government understood the problems we are dealing with, the global inflationary crisis that is having a real impact on ordinary people. People are having to make do with less because prices are going up. Food, energy and gas prices, not to mention housing prices, have all gone up. People are facing major challenges, and the government says that we are in the middle of an inflationary crisis. A few days ago, even the Minister of Finance said she would be making an economic statement today because we are looking at an inflationary crisis. It is the same thing with the risk of a recession. Once again, it is a global issue. Most economists and analysts are saying that there is reason for concern and that we could enter a recession in 2023. We know that the Bank of Canada and the central banks decided to fight inflation to bring price increases back into the range of 1% to 3%, thus the 2% target. In order to do that, they are implementing a monetary policy that involves increasing interest rates. Higher interest rates mean an economic slowdown because of softening demand, which is why there is a risk of a global recession. The country's economy is facing a recession in the coming year, and the minister recognizes that in the economic statement. We commend her for that. The further we read in the document, the more we examine it from every angle, the more we do the math and compare the tables, statistics and figures in this statement with what was in last spring's budget, the more we realize that it is all very slick rhetoric. The document recognizes the economic problems that we face, but when it comes to proposing any solutions, it leaves much to be desired. There are actually very few new measures announced in this economic statement. It reiterates what has been adopted since the beginning of the fall. It reiterates the commitments made in the last budget. It announces that there could be additional measures in 2024, but there is not much new for now. There is actually some assistance for student loans. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I, as the member for Joliette, can say that this does not affect us very much, given that the loans and bursaries system is under the purview of Quebec. I guess it is good for students in the rest of Canada, but this measure does not directly affect Quebeckers. Next the government says it will spend more to hire more public servants to improve service delivery. That is great. We saw what happened with passports in the summer. There are countless examples. There are many problems related to wait times. Nevertheless, this is a fairly minor expenditure. There is nothing major here. The statement also reiterates the funding announced for the people in the Maritimes and eastern Quebec who suffered through hurricane Fiona. We applaud that commitment as well. However, all of this is very minor and very marginal. The statement uses the word “inflation” over a hundred times, but the solutions it offers are the same ones that were presented in the spring budget, which made hardly any reference to inflation. There is an inflationary crisis going on, but what is being done about it? The government uses the word “inflation”, then rehashes the same proposals it served up in the spring, when it was not talking about inflation. One of Quebec's national dishes is shepherd's pie. People generally say that it tastes better when it is reheated. The same cannot be said of the measures we have here. What we are being served in this update, in this economic statement, is reheated leftovers. Most of the measures in the update are reheated leftovers. The significance of the current inflationary crisis and the risks of recession should not be minimized. The Bloc Québécois called on the government to take that into account and propose concrete solutions. For example, if workers lose their jobs because of the recession, we will need an employment insurance system that works. Everyone, including the government, knows that the EI system is broken. It is so badly broken that for every 10 people who lose their job, barely four have access to EI. Since 2015, the government has been telling us to wait. It has been telling us that change is coming, that the system will be reformed. We have been listening to the same broken record for seven years. We expected it to happen last September, as the special measures for the pandemic were ending, but no, back we went to the old Axworthy system that does not work at all. The government is telling us that we are headed for a recession, so the time has come to take action. It is urgent that we fix the EI system. There has been plenty of consultation. We know exactly what needs to be done to improve the system, but no. This is yet another missed opportunity. According to this economic statement, the EI system will not be fixed. The government is going to leave it broken. The government is saying that it is presenting an economic statement because we may be headed for a recession, but at the same time, it is saying that it will not fix the EI system. I completely agree with my colleague from Terrebonne when she said that the government seems to be working in silos. Did the minister responsible for EI talk to the Minister of Finance? Do these people talk to each other? This would have been a good opportunity to do so. We are in the midst of an inflationary crisis. Prices are going up, and the primary victims are obviously those whose incomes are not indexed to inflation. I am talking about seniors. As we know, the government decided to help people aged 75 and up, but not those aged 65 to 75. This government created two classes of seniors. Today, faced with a significant increase in the price of housing, gas and groceries, low-income seniors aged 65 to 75 do not have enough money to eat properly. They must turn to food banks and make some agonizing and very humiliating choices. Given that today's statement acknowledged the problem of the current inflationary crisis, now would have been the time to announce measures for these people. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government must not create two classes of seniors and that it must increase old age security for seniors 65 and up to cover inflation and deliver a modicum of social justice. This government willfully refused. Why is the government refusing to help those aged 65 to 75? I believe it is because the Liberals want these payments to be insufficient for low-income people in the first class of seniors that it created, those aged 65 to 75, so they will no longer have enough public support to make it to the end of the month. That way, those seniors will be forced to return to work. In 2015, this government was boasting about rescinding the Conservative law that raised the retirement age to 67. However, when we look at what is happening to seniors aged 65 to 75 as a result of inflation, we see a government that is trying to bring in a similar policy through the back door, a government that is ensuring that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not have sufficient income from public pension funds to make ends meet. As a result, they are going to be forced to return to the labour market. If that is the goal, it is very hypocritical. If that is not the goal, then I do not know what this government's problem is. It could be gross incompetence, but I think it is more likely utter hypocrisy. This is not right. It is unfair. When low-income people retire, they have often worked hard their whole lives. They are often single women. In many cases, they were caregivers. They do not have a pension because they stayed at home to take care of their family. This government claims to be feminist, but it does not recognize their contribution, and it is failing them. In its statement, the government acknowledged that there is an inflationary crisis, but it is not doing anything for those hit hardest by this crisis. That is deplorable. We expected to see something like that in the statement, but it is not there, and that is deplorable. There is an inflation crisis, prices are going up, and there might be a recession. Communities in Quebec and the other provinces are also experiencing another major crisis, the health care crisis. People no longer have access to doctors. The health care system is broken. It was strained during the pandemic. Workers and nurses are all exhausted. They are burned out. Plus, the system is underfunded. The fact is, these problems started in the 1990s when the federal government in Ottawa decided to deal with deficit and debt problems by reducing health transfers. That is when things started to go wrong. In the aftermath of the pandemic, as infection rates begin to fall, we are starting to see how much was put off during that time. We thought that screening, care and surgery could wait a little while, but now we realize that the system is no longer working at all. The provinces and Quebec know what to do, and the specialists and the expertise are there. They know what to do, but they lack resources because Ottawa has been neglecting its role for quite some time now. The provincial and Quebec governments are telling Ottawa that it is time for the federal level to play its role by providing as much funding for health care as possible. These figures are calculated year after year by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to him, health transfers should amount to $28 billion, and there should be a 6% increase every year to cover the rising costs and the existing needs. There is a desperate need. In response to this public health crisis, the government had the role and the duty to address this issue today in this statement, especially since the government just announced that in a few days it is inviting all the provincial health ministers to a nice meeting with the federal government to discuss health systems and funding. What is the government going to tell those ministers just a few days after saying that it would not invest a penny more in the system when the need is there? When he was health minister in Quebec City, the very Liberal and very colourful Gaétan Barrette accused this government of practising predatory federalism, because the government was imposing conditions without providing the necessary funding to go with it. It was a Liberal health minister who accused this government of practising predatory federalism. That kind of infighting among the Liberals sends a clear message that things are not going well, not at all. Today, the government and the Minister of Finance had a unique opportunity to announce that they were going to address this issue and set the stage for the ministers' meeting. Again, they have been promising to fix this situation since 2015. Every time a Bloc Québécois member stands up in the House and asks the government if it is going to do its job, the government says that something is coming down the pike and not to worry. We may have believed that promise once or twice, but after hearing it for seven years, enough is enough. What message are we sending to the provincial health ministers who are trying to figure this out? They are the ones holding together the health care system, which is crumbling because of the considerable strain it was under during the pandemic. Now they are being invited for talks, but the numbers that have just been released show that there is not a penny more for them. It is contemptuous. This government stands up at every opportunity to lecture every other level of government. It even stands up to lecture the Pope and people around the world. However, when it comes to dealing with its own files, it is nowhere to be found, it is not up to the task. That is what we saw with passports and immigration too. Everything this government touches turns into a fiasco. There are cost overruns and service is not up to par. Now it is trying to tell the provinces what they should do, but it is not even investing any money. I mentioned immigration. A few days ago, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced new immigration levels. Canada will aim to bring in 25% more immigrants by 2025. That means 500,000 newcomers per year, as reiterated in today's statement. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about that for a number of reasons. Let me start with the practical, pragmatic reasons. We believe those targets are unrealistic. Our riding offices have been inundated with requests for urgent intervention because departmental employees cannot handle applications that are already in the queue. Wait times are atrocious, documents get lost, and mistakes are constantly being made. From a purely practical, technical perspective, maybe the government should show that it is capable of doing its job properly—and it is not—before it changes the target. Then we can talk. The government did not include one line about housing capacity. We have a housing shortage. In Quebec and across Canada, there is a shortage of housing. The Liberal government in Ottawa withdrew from funding social housing in the 1990s, and nothing has been done since. Of course, a bit of funding was announced recently, but it does not go far enough to meet the current needs. There is not enough housing. The private sector does not have the capacity to build enough homes, condos, apartments to meet the current needs. The government is planning to grow the population very quickly. Where are we going to put all these people? Condos and houses are no longer affordable. What do we tell young people? They want the American dream, which is to be part of the middle class and have a union job that allows them to buy a house and pay for it during their working life. Now that dream is shattered. Young people can no longer hope to be able to afford a home or become a homeowner in their lifetime. The housing shortage is exacerbated by the imbalance between supply and demand and the fact that the population is growing. Prices are skyrocketing, and housing is no longer affordable. These young people are being told that we are going to increase the population very quickly without restoring any balance to the housing market. This does not make sense. I used housing as an example, but the same is true for schools. There are not enough spaces. There is no coordination in that area either, nor in the area of health care. This is irresponsible. The situation is tough for us in Quebec, since we are not yet a country. Earlier, the leader of the Conservative Party talked about what he will do when he is prime minister. I want to talk about what Quebec will do when it is a country. I think this will happen within 10 years, because we will work hard. Seeing how this government and this nation ignore us, we will have all the cards to take control of our destiny. If we were to accept our share of the target that has been announced, which is prorated to our population, how could we properly accommodate and integrate such large numbers? That is impossible. It is impossible to guarantee that the French language would be preserved and respected. Even in Quebec, we see that the French language is in decline. Bill C-13 is currently being studied in committee, and the government wants to reject the Bloc's amendments, which seek to better protect French in Quebec. I am not even talking about French outside Quebec, because the figures have plummeted and that is so very sad. With the complicity of the fourth party in the House, the government will continue to erode the weight of the French language even within Quebec. We are not equipped to properly welcome all these newcomers in the language of Molière, the official language of Quebec. That is a serious problem. It is an impossible situation because if we welcome fewer immigrants in order to integrate them well, Quebec's weight as a proportion of Canada's population will quickly diminish. Either way, we could be marginalized, and it is the very survival of our culture that is at stake. Let me be clear. Immigration is a great asset. Welcoming newcomers is wonderful, except that Quebec culture does not support the policy of multiculturalism, which basically consists of telling immigrants to come live here as though they were still living in their own country and not to integrate because their grandchildren will. That is not what immigration is for us. We want to be able to say hello to a newcomer, to talk with them. We want to benefit from their rich cultural heritage, and we want them to be one of the gang, someone we can interact with. That is not going to work if the the immigration levels are quickly increased as announced. That is very worrisome. I am sorry that I spent a little longer than expected on that aside, but it is still very important. Let me come back to the economic statement. With regard to EI, as my colleague from Terrebonne said, the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development likely did not talk to the Minister of Finance. As she also said, it sounds like the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did not talk to the Minister of Finance either. It sounds like the Liberal government is using the Apple method of developing policies and projects piecemeal without any communication. It looks like that is what is happening here. Everything that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has said, in the House and in the media, is missing from the economic statement. I do not get it. That is problematic. In times of economic uncertainty, discipline is called for, but not austerity. That is why we want the most vulnerable, like seniors aged 65 to 75, to have support measures they can count on during this inflationary period. That is very important. We do not want austerity. We have asked the government to focus on its basic roles, on the federal government's primary functions, to try to concentrate on those and do them well for a change. Health funding is one example. We were really surprised by the last budget, in the spring. The government announced 15 or so new policies, new ways of doing things, mostly in health. These were all encroachments on provincial jurisdictions. Instead of focusing on doing its job well, the government wanted to work on the ground in Quebec and the provinces and encroach on their jurisdictions. Here we have another example. The government is announcing the creation of a jobs secretariat. That is something Quebec is taking care of, and it is going quite well. Ottawa wants to use us as a model. One of our fears is an encroachment in a few years' time. Sooner or later, it is going to impose conditions on us. It is going to steal our model and then tell us that it has its own program now and that we have to follow suit. Then we will no longer have the freedom to implement our model, which is based on the labour market in Germany. We drew inspiration from Germany. Again, these are encroachments. Instead of doing its job well and focusing on its role, the government continues to stray. The media reported a new tax on share buybacks. It is an interesting measure. We look forward to studying it, but the update states it will be implemented in 2024. It is now 2022. Today, the government was either rehashing old measures or announcing measures that will not be implemented in the next little while, or next year, but the year after that. Once that time comes, we can talk about it then and see if the government has made the same announcement about the same measure six times by then or if it changed its mind. Evidently, this is not an economic update that will go down in history. The minister's speech earlier was full of fine rhetoric, fine principles, and a fine acknowledgement of the problems affecting the economy. However, this government was either rehashing old measures, approaches and actions it wants to take or putting off new measures to the distant future. The rest is inconsequential. The government had a golden opportunity to solve problems and consider the seriousness of the current crisis, but it did not do so. That is extremely unfortunate. Obviously, I encourage the minister to talk to her colleagues, to come to the Standing Committee on Finance more often, and to communicate more with representatives from all sectors of the country's economy, without ever forgetting Quebec. That will only do her a lot of good and may even inspire her to implement concrete measures.

3661 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Nov/3/22 4:34:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. Her speech sounded nice enough, but take a look at the concrete measures in the economic statement and try to see what is new compared to last spring's budget. It is disappointing. The minister just gave two examples of measures that were adopted before this statement was presented. What I liked about her speech is that she recognized that there is an inflationary crisis at the moment, and she acknowledged the risk of an imminent recession. However, I find it unfortunate that there are no new concrete measures that would show Canadians how this crisis will be dealt with, how they will be helped and supported. For example, we know the employment insurance system is not working. It is broken. Now is the time to fix it, before the country goes into recession. However, that was not announced in the speech. As prices go up, we worry about seniors, especially those from 65 to 75 years of age whose payments did not go up. There are no new measures for these people, who can no longer make ends meet and whose incomes are really limited, nor are there any fiscal measures that would give them an incentive to work if they want to work a few days a week. I think that would have been easy to do, and we expected to see something like that here. My last comment is about health care. We know that health care systems in all the provinces and Quebec are underfunded and in crisis. There are problems. Provincial health ministers will be meeting with the government in a few days. What will they talk about? We expected the government to solve the problem by transferring the $28 billion and committing to increasing health transfers by 6% per year. With the ministers' meeting just days away, there is no money on the table. What is going on? If the government knows there are problems, why did it announce so few measures—really, hardly any new measures—in this statement?

348 words

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 5:05:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the current inflationary crisis is affecting everyone and putting millions of households in hopeless situations. Families must make agonizing choices to be able to continue making rent or mortgage payments. Many low-income Canadians are cutting back on food and going hungry. The same is true for many middle-class households that are heavily in debt. Such a huge increase in prices, especially for food, energy and housing, creates considerable hardship, and that is not something to take lightly. My thoughts are with the millions of seniors who were already struggling to make ends meet before prices started going up. They are now facing an impossible task, making choices or making cuts to their budgets. The inflation crisis is one of the most worrisome issues in the world, and I commend those who are trying to address it and find solutions. As members know, the current increase in prices we are experiencing is essentially a global phenomenon and analysts generally agree that the situation is primarily attributed to a decrease in aggregate supply. The supply chain problem led to a significant drop in supply. It is the same thing with the war in Ukraine. Crop failures due to droughts or floods are also reducing supply in the food sector. Labour shortages, which existed before the pandemic but have gotten worse since, are limiting business activity, leading to a decrease in total supply, and so on. On the demand side, we have seen more of a change than a significant increase in demand. During the pandemic, people shifted their usual consumer choices to new sectors. Supply was unable to adapt quickly enough, so we saw new price increases and often shortages, resulting from the imbalance. We are seeing the same type of imbalance in the real estate market, where the construction of new housing is insufficient to meet demand. Inflation in that sector is also being spurred by the labour shortage and the increase in the price of building materials, which is itself explained by the current inflationary situation and the change in consumer habits during the pandemic, not to mention the impact of the war. Even though the central bank's injection of money into the economy and the government's support to maintain consumer spending during lockdown were more generous than necessary, because they were not always well targeted, the effect of those interventions on the increase in global demand and on prices is generally secondary. The government's actions are not the main reason for the global inflationary crisis. Unfortunately for us, and especially for those impacted the most by the current rate of inflation, there is no simple solution to a decrease in aggregate supply. The best solution is to support businesses as they adapt to the new reality. It is a long and complicated process, but as I said, even if the effect is not felt immediately, it is the best solution. For example, let us look at the labour shortage. The government could provide support for the automation of some economic activities. The government could also change the tax system to entice young retirees who want to remain in the labour market, perhaps with part-time work. The government could provide support for companies that invest in resilience, for example by making decisions that cut their energy consumption. The government could also do this for households, of course. That is the primary solution for addressing the supply side of the issue. Unfortunately, this government is doing very little about it. It is said that the central bank is well positioned to use monetary policy to counter inflation. The Bank of Canada must ensure that the overall economy is in good shape. To that end, its main policy objective for the past 30 years has been to keep the average annual increase in prices within a range of 1% to 3%. As we know, we are well past the upper limit now. Although the central bank is extremely well equipped to control inflation when the economy is overheating because of an increase in demand, the situation is very different in the event of a decrease in supply. That is because successively raising its key interest rate does not allow the central bank to influence supply. It simply reduces demand. In other words, since production is insufficient to meet demand, equilibrium prices rise. All the Bank of Canada can do is lower demand to reduce the price increase. However, at the end of the day, there are not more goods and services available, only less room to manoeuvre and borrow to make consumption or investment choices. The risk of such a monetary policy is that if we are not in an overheated situation when the policy is implemented, the central bank's action could also slow down the economy or even plunge it into recession. Again, there is not much that either monetary or fiscal policy can do to respond to a supply crisis. These policies aim to reduce demand in order to lower prices, but they do not allow for increased production in the short term. I want to reiterate that the best government policy is to support businesses and help them adapt and become more resilient in order to push supply back up, even though that does not happen automatically. We should also take advantage of the current situation to accelerate the shift to a green economy. We can kill two birds with one stone. The government's response to the current crisis must be tied to the goal of reducing pollution. I also want to reiterate that we need to avoid falling into the very tempting trap of responding to a decrease in supply by giving everyone money. That kind of policy may appear to meet people's needs, but it will quickly fuel inflation. It is therefore a futile, ineffective policy, especially if it drives society as a whole into debt. It is a good solution, but not for a supply-side crisis. In the same vein, the inflationary crisis should not be an excuse to shirk our much-needed climate change commitments. I would like to remind the House that the federal carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has its own approach using a carbon exchange. I would also like to remind the House that very few households in Quebec heat with oil. They heat mainly with electricity, which is renewable. Finally, let us not forget that the provinces, such as Newfoundland, are free to set up their own environmental plan and can choose to waive taxes on home heating fuel. Provinces like Newfoundland that are fortunate to have significant hydro power capacity can also offer incentives for people to switch from oil to electric heat. Finally, with respect to the current inflationary crisis, again, there are no simple or easy solutions. We can help companies pivot. We also have a moral obligation to help the most vulnerable people and the hardest-hit sectors cope. Think of individuals and households with low incomes. Think of seniors who depend on small, non-indexed pensions. Think of sectors that are bearing the brunt of inflation, such as agriculture. The European Central Bank's chief economist reminded us that a good way to fight inflation is to redistribute wealth rather than go into debt to support households and individuals. This means targeted measures for the less fortunate financed by a special tax on the wealthiest. Let us seriously consider that suggestion. The one thing we must not do is react to the crisis by once again abandoning our efforts to fight climate change.

1272 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 109 - Oct/6/22

Oct/20/22 4:46:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. What are her thoughts on the statement by the European Central Bank's chief economist about how boosting the most vulnerable people's purchasing power is the best way to fight this round of inflation, and how this policy should be paid for through redistribution, which means drastically increasing taxes on the very rich? Do she and her party agree with this principle?

72 words

All Topics

Oct/6/22 11:57:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion calls for: (a) forcing CEOs and big corporations to pay what they owe, by closing the loopholes that have allowed them to avoid $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone, resulting in a corporate tax rate that is effectively lower now than when this government was elected; The motion talks about tax avoidance by all corporations in every sector to the tune of $30 billion. In fact, that corresponds to the difference between the corporate tax rate, which is 25%, and the rate corporations actually pay, which is around 15%. We have to be very careful when we make such statements since the gap between the tax rate and the effective tax rate is not necessarily due to abuse. Parliament often adopts measures to provide tax breaks and tax credits to encourage good behaviour. Just look at the research and development tax credit and the production technology tax credits, which increase productivity and help limit the effects of the labour shortage. Look at the tax credit for clean technologies and the deductibility of contributions to pension plans and workers' group insurance plans. All those credits lower the effective tax rate, but they are neither abuse nor fraud. It is false and inflammatory to suggest that inflation is due in large part to greedy corporations not paying their fair share of taxes. Madam Speaker, I would ask the Liberals to respect decorum. I know they do not listen when members are speaking in French in the House, but they could at least keep quiet so as not to interfere with the business of the House.

269 words

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

M. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Sep/29/22 4:48:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for keeping decorum in the House. As I was saying, we cannot take these huge price increases and the hardship they cause lightly, especially when it comes to the price of food, electricity and housing. My thoughts are with the millions of seniors who were already struggling to make ends meet before prices started going up. They are now facing an impossible task, making choices or making cuts to their budgets. The inflation crisis is one of the most worrisome issues in the world, and I acknowledge that people are trying to address it and find solutions. I am going to put on my CEGEP economics teacher cap and give an overview of inflation and the economy. The aggregate demand and aggregate supply model is a useful tool for understanding the phenomenon of inflation. This model tells us that inflation is caused by an increase in aggregate demand, a decrease in total supply or a combination of the two. Analysts generally agree that the increase in prices we are experiencing is essentially a global phenomenon primarily attributed to a decrease in aggregate supply. The supply chain problem led to a significant drop in supply. It is the same thing with the war in Ukraine. Crop failures due to droughts or floods are also reducing supply in the food sector. Labour shortages, which existed before the pandemic but have gotten worse since, are limiting business activity, leading to a decrease in total supply, and so on. On the demand side, we have seen more of a change than a significant increase in demand. During the pandemic, people shifted their usual consumer choices to new sectors. Supply was unable to adapt quickly enough, so we saw new price increases and often shortages, resulting from the imbalance. We are seeing the same type of imbalance in the real estate market, where the construction of new housing is insufficient to meet demand. Inflation in that sector is also driven by the increase in the price of building materials, which is itself explained by the current inflationary situation and the change in consumer habits during the pandemic, not to mention the impact of the war. Even though the central bank's injection of money into the economy and the government's support to keep consumption going during lockdown were more generous than necessary, because they were not always well targeted, the effect of those interventions on the increase in global demand and on prices is generally secondary. The government's actions are not the main reason for the global inflationary crisis. Unfortunately for us, and especially for those impacted the most by the current rate of inflation, there is no simple solution to a decrease in aggregate supply. The best solution is to support businesses as they adapt to the new reality. It is a long and complicated process, but as I said, even if the effect is not felt immediately, it is the best solution. For example, let us look at the labour shortage. The government could provide support for the automation of some economic activities. The government could also change the tax system to entice young retirees who want to remain in the labour market, perhaps with part-time work. The government could provide support for companies that invest in resilience, for example by making decisions that cut their energy consumption. The government could also do this for households, of course. That is the primary solution for addressing the supply side of the issue. Unfortunately, this government is doing very little about it. I am also disappointed that the official opposition, which says it is concerned about this issue, is not putting this solution forward. Both major Canadian parties seem to be short-sighted on this issue. It is often said that the central bank is well positioned to use monetary policy to counter inflation. The Bank of Canada must ensure that the overall economy is in good shape. To that end, its main policy objective for the past 30 years has been to keep the average annual increase in prices within a range of 1% to 3%. Obviously, we are well past the upper limit now. Although the central bank is extremely well equipped to control inflation when the economy is overheating because of an increase in aggregate demand, the situation is very different in the event of a supply crisis. That is because successively raising its key interest rate does not allow the central bank to influence supply. It simply reduces demand. In other words, since production is insufficient to meet the demand, equilibrium prices rise, and all the Bank of Canada can do is lower demand to reduce the price increase. However, at the end of the day, there are not more goods and services on the market, only less room to manoeuvre and borrow to make consumption or investment choices. Such a monetary policy could pose a risk. If, at the time of implementation, the economy is not in an overheated situation where overall supply is basically inelastic, the central bank's action could also slow down the economy or even plunge it into recession. Considering how much the labour market is changing, this could almost be described as a quantum leap. The signals of the economic context are difficult to pick up, and there is a real risk that the monetary policy will be too restrictive and therefore impede growth. Again, there is not much that either monetary or fiscal policy can do to respond to a supply crisis. These policies aim to reduce demand in order to lower prices, but they do not allow for increased production in the short term. I want to reiterate that the best government policy is to support businesses and help them adapt and become more resilient in order to push supply back up, even though that does not happen automatically. If there is one lesson we can learn from the global supply-and-demand model, it is that we need to avoid falling into the very tempting trap of responding to a decrease in supply by giving everyone money. That kind of policy may appear to meet people's needs, but it will quickly fuel inflation. It is therefore a futile, ineffective policy, especially if it drives society as a whole into debt. It is a good solution, but not for a supply-side crisis. Tax cuts would have exactly the same effect. It is tempting, but it is a short-sighted solution that would make the problem worse, not better. Indeed, such an expansionist policy would actually thwart the central bank's restrictive policy. That would be the worst possible situation. England is currently experiencing major difficulties that illustrate what happens when policies clash like that. What can we do? As I said, there are no simple or easy solutions. We can help companies pivot. We also have a moral obligation to help the most vulnerable people and the hardest-hit sectors cope. I am thinking of low-income families and single people, especially seniors who live on modest pensions that are not indexed. I am also thinking of sectors that are particularly affected by inflation, such as agriculture. We also need to reinvest in social housing to respond to the housing crisis. For goodness' sake, though, we should not send cheques to everyone, lower taxes for everyone or, above all, abandon our climate efforts.

1239 words

All Topics

Sep/29/22 4:47:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the current inflationary crisis is affecting everyone and putting millions of households in hopeless situations. Families must make agonizing choices to be able to continue making rent or mortgage payments. Many low-income people are cutting back on food and going hungry. The same is true for many middle-class households that are heavily in debt. Such a huge increase in prices, especially for food, energy and housing, creates considerable hardship, and that is not something to take lightly.

81 words

Context: House Hansard - 101 - Sep/23/22

Sep/29/22 4:00:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech, in which she talked about the difficult situation that seniors are experiencing because of inflation and price increases. She talked about increasing old age security to better support them. The problem we have with that increase is that only seniors aged 75 and over will benefit. The government is leaving out people aged 65 to 75. In the fight against inflation, if the government wants to recognize seniors, why is it creating two classes of seniors? Why is it leaving out people aged 65 to 75?

94 words

All Topics

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

Sep/23/22 1:13:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say hello to the parliamentary secretary and thank her for her speech. Her speech focused on inflation. In fact, Bill C-30 is a response to inflation. How will her government support developing countries that are dealing with serious inflation problems? They are facing a food shortage and an energy crisis. International institutions encouraged these countries to take on massive debt to get through the pandemic. Their loans are for the most part in U.S. dollars, and the dollar's value is soaring at present because it serves as a safe haven. The same goes for imports, including food imports, which are negotiated in U.S. dollars. These countries are facing a real catastrophe, and there could be a cascade of bankruptcies. What does her government plan to do to support them?

139 words