- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Joliette
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46
- Government Page
- Jun/16/23 10:46:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an insightful comment and question. I thank my hon. colleague, with whom I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on Finance.
When a Toronto bank reports its profits in the Caribbean, this means unpaid taxes, longer hospital wait times and less school funding. These are directly linked. This is so important. We all remember the tragic fires in Fort McMurray. The IMF said that these fires were causing a recession in the Caribbean, where Canadian corporations and Canadian banks report their profits, because there was a direct impact. That gives us an idea of the situation. It is opaque, but we can indirectly see the scale of the problem. This has to change, but it takes political will. I implore the government to do something about it.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Manicouagan, and I commend her for all the work she does for the people she represents, including on the issue of employment insurance. Many people throughout Quebec and Canada, including her region, have seasonal jobs. The workers are not seasonal, the jobs are.
Do we collectively want to make use of the land? Do we want people to be able to live and work in their region and flourish there? If so, then we have an EI system that is truly dysfunctional right now. It has not been reformed, and the government has been pushing back the reform every year since 2015.
On top of all the problems, there is the issue of the spring gap. There are not enough weeks of benefits for a person living off seasonal employment to have income all year round. A pilot project was rolled out, but once again there is insecurity. This is being put off for another year.
Will it be enough? Will it be as usual? This is the government's way of doing things. We are a little relieved that this initiative has been extended for a year, because the alternative would have been terrible for our regions, even though the problem is far from being resolved. How much would it cost to reform an insurance system that is broken? It will be a major investment for everyone, especially with a possible recession looming.
243 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:17:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his question and his legitimate concerns.
The government has been promising to reform the EI system since 2015. Since last fall, analysts and economists have been telling us to be careful because there is a risk of a recession. Whether big or small, there is going to be a recession.
We know that the most important automatic stabilizer in a recession is employment insurance. We know that the EI system is not working. Just four out of 10 people who lose their job are covered.
Things have gotten so bad that Minister Morneau suspended the program at the outset of the pandemic because it just was not working. He decided instead to implement costly, improvised short-term programs. That cost a fortune and it was not effective.
The EI system needs to be reformed now.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 11:11:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you for those clarifications. It is still a grey area. MPs learn something every day in the House.
Crises teach us so much because they subject our societies to pressure. They highlight our strengths and our weaknesses. However, for the past three years, we have been operating from inside a Matryoshka doll set of crises that have revealed weaknesses in both our economic structure and government action. There was the COVID‑19 crisis, lockdowns and a stalled economy.
First, let us talk about the public health crisis. The COVID‑19 crisis revealed the system's extreme fragility, aggravated by the aging population. It was primarily caused, however, by chronic federal underfunding, which has escalated since 2017 when health transfers stopped being tied to rising costs.
A better division of health care costs, including adequate and predictable federal funding, would have protected our health care system from potential collapse. Moreover, recent agreements are insufficient to stave off that threat. At best, they temporarily freeze, at an insufficient level, the federal share of health care funding, nothing more. In 10 years, Ottawa will contribute 24% of health care costs, which is the same percentage it was contributing when the current Prime Minister took office in 2015.
We know that ending the government's disengagement is not enough to rebuild the health care system. The government needs to tackle the chronic underfunding with a significant reinvestment if we have any hope of being able to deal with the coming demographic crisis. Quebec and the Canadian provinces have said it again and again while providing ample evidence to support their case, but Ottawa is missing in action. Ottawa is the one holding on to the money that Quebec and the provinces urgently need on a ongoing basis.
COVID-19 created an income crisis for individuals by forcing millions of people to stop working temporarily. It brought to light the flaws in the employment insurance system, which covers only a small portion of the contributors who lose their jobs. Because the system was inadequate, the government was forced to compensate by creating a whole host of special programs, which were often not well-thought-out, poorly targeted, ineffective and costly. However, these programs expired, as did the relaxed EI rules, which are now back to the way they were before 2020 and before COVID showed us how inadequate they were.
With the threat of a recession looming, now is the time to fix the problems with the EI system, to make it more accessible and to adapt it to non-standard jobs, which are becoming increasingly common. Ottawa is refusing to conduct this necessary, in-depth reform.
After the lockdowns, the economy reopened. This reopening of the economy also revealed its share of weaknesses. The housing shortage, caused by years of underfunding and not building enough homes, caused prices to skyrocket. Housing starts, especially for affordable rental housing and social and co-operative housing are still weak in 2023. Things need to change course and fast.
The destabilization of our manufacturing sector made us seriously dependent on foreign suppliers in globalized supply chains, whose fragility was exposed during the crisis. There again, the disruptions led to shortages and high inflation, amplified by a lack of competition, which allowed mass distribution to increase its prices at will. We need to rebuild solid supply chains immediately and improve our competition regime. It is imperative that we improve the resilience of our economy.
All these factors contributed to the increase in prices and then the successive interest rate hikes set by the central bank. We know who is suffering the most from this: people on a fixed income, such as pensioners, low-income earners who cannot cope with the increased cost of essentials, and heavily indebted households that are especially hard hit by rising interest rates, especially young families who recently purchased a home.
As if that were not enough, we are now being rocked by international crises. Aggression against Ukraine is turning Russia into an international pariah and pushing it out of trade and economic channels. That has impacted the price of commodities, oil, grains and fertilizers, all of which have skyrocketed. In addition to reminding us that we need to urgently reduce our dependency on oil, war is affecting the agricultural sector in particular, where input costs have skyrocketed. That sector urgently needs to be given the tools to survive the crisis, as well as help to adopt a more sustainable model: supply management protection, predictability, resilience to annual yield variability and disasters, ecological transition, standards reciprocity and succession planning, among other things.
Then there is China. Its economy is far more diversified than that of Russia, and a rise in tensions is likely to impact many more sectors. In particular, we are completely dependent on China's supply of components needed for high-tech goods and the electrification of transportation. These sectors need a major boost.
We already have a relative advantage because Quebec and Canada have critical mineral deposits. If we move from mining to producing batteries, as the government of Quebec is proposing, we will all have what it takes to become the engine of transportation electrification in North America and become a vital link in new and more resilient supply chains. In that area, Ottawa must align with Quebec to accelerate the rolling out of its strategy.
Finally, there are crises unfolding in slow motion. There are three crises that we can see coming. They have been anticipated and analyzed for a long time, and there is no reason for not implementing the measures needed to address them.
First of all, there are demographic changes. The aging population will put more pressure on health care services and on the public finances of Quebec and the provinces, as we know. As baby boomers retire, this will also have significant economic repercussions. Canada ranks near the bottom of OECD countries when it comes to protecting the purchasing power of retirees. There is an urgent need to preserve seniors' purchasing power to ensure that the demographic shock does not cause a major economic shock, which is why we want an increase in old age security that does not discriminate based on age.
This wave of retirements is problematic for businesses. The labour shortage could prevent us from rebuilding our supply chains if we do not take steps to address the shortage. Incentives must be provided for experienced workers who want to stay on the job. Our businesses need to step up their productivity to help them deal with the labour shortage. The temporary foreign worker program must be transferred to Quebec, which will be able to make it more efficient and bring it in line with Quebec's labour policies.
Then there is the climate crisis. Again, it has been unfolding for a long time, and we have analyzed it from every angle. However, we have been slow to act. Whether we are talking about shoreline erosion or the increase in extreme weather events, climate change will put enormous pressure on our public infrastructure. An adjustment fund is needed.
More fundamentally, we must accelerate the transition to a net-zero economy. The money invested in oil and gas must be urgently redirected to the green economy, with a focus on energy efficiency in all sectors, the electrification of transportation, which includes critical mineral processing, the transition from oil to renewable energy, and more sustainable agricultural practices.
As oil companies take advantage of international crises to rake in obscene profits, Ottawa must end all forms of subsidies, including subsidies for carbon sequestration and small nuclear power plants that are designed to produce energy to increase oil sands production. This money must be redirected to accelerating the transition.
Given the enormity of the task and the urgent need for action, the financial sector will have to participate and gradually redirect its oil investments to the green economy. Ottawa must get the banks to step up to the plate by forcing them to integrate climate risks into their investments. Tens of billions of dollars could be made available for the green transition.
There is the ongoing issue of the fiscal imbalance, which is causing major problems that are limiting the government's ability to address the many challenges it faces. There are three types of problems. First, Ottawa, which brings in more revenue than it needs to discharge its responsibilities, is not making an effort to manage its own affairs properly. The federal government is notoriously ineffective, and everything costs more than it should.
I would like to give two examples to illustrate this. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. Everything costs more and those are just two examples.
Then, Ottawa uses its fiscal room to interfere in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This sort of interference makes the sharing of powers less clear and less sound while undermining our autonomy. Administrative duplication is not in any way efficient. All it does is promote centralization in Ottawa.
I will again give two examples. The first concerns something that happened very recently, specifically the implementation of the dental care program for children. Quebec already provides dental insurance. However, the federal government did not make any effort to harmonize programs and simply created a second program. That is completely inefficient and ends up costing twice as much. It is really outrageous, and the Bloc Québécois has spoken about that many times.
Here is a more general example. People in Quebec have to complete two tax returns when, for years, the Quebec National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois have been calling for a single tax return. That is a useless and inefficient duplication of effort.
Lastly, with regard to the fiscal imbalance, given that Ottawa tightly controls the purse strings of the governments of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, the Quebec government's ability to fully discharge its responsibilities is diminished.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been clear: If the trend continues, eventually, provincial governments will no longer be sustainable. They will likely collapse while the federal government's fiscal room will increase considerably. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been telling us in his fiscal sustainability report year after year.
In other words, unless the trend is reversed, we run the risk of seeing an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa, which will take away the Quebec people's ability to control their development according to their needs, strengths, characteristics and wishes.
In that regard, at a time when this government is choosing to contribute six times less for health care than Quebec and the provinces are asking for to fix the system, Ottawa has unprecedented fiscal room that is in excess of $80 billion, or three times the amount of the health care requests.
Let me explain. Ottawa increasingly budgets money for voted items that it fails to spend year after year. When you add up the items that were voted and the spending that was authorized but not spent last year, $41 bilion was left on the table. Let me repeat that. Some $41 billion was left on the table because it was voted or authorized but not spent. This is in addition to another $40 billion in extra fiscal room, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If the federal government wanted to maintain its debt-to-GDP ratio, it could increase spending or reduce revenues by that amount.
When we talk about unprecedented centralization and the fact that the money is here, we are talking about $81 billion in one single year. That is three times the amount the provinces and Quebec were asking for to better fund health care. Ottawa said no and agreed to six times less. That is peanuts. The federal government is gradually stabilizing its share, and the money stays here. That money will be used for new programs that interfere in our jurisdictions. There is no respect for the governments of Quebec and the provinces or for the National Assembly.
It was with these important challenges in mind that the Bloc Québécois drew up its expectations for the 2023 federal budget. We presented them to the minister a few weeks ago. Considering the challenges we are facing, now is not the time for shiny new programs, which are often not within the federal government's purview anyway, nor for pre-election pandering.
Financially speaking, the way to avoid austerity is to be prudent. Economically speaking, the best way to insulate ourselves from the potential turmoil of an extraordinarily uncertain environment is to tackle the fundamental issues. In this period of uncertainty, we need to get back to the essentials. The strengths of Quebec's economy are precisely what is needed to succeed in a rapidly changing world.
Also, the way to meet the current needs of the different sectors of Quebec's economy is to finally step into the 21st century. We have an abundant supply of clean, renewable energy, especially hydroelectricity. In this area, the shift is already under way, and we are ready to move on to the next step, which is a net-zero economy.
If our forests are managed sustainably, they are renewable resources that could be one of the keys to replacing hydrocarbons. More research would allow more processing and greater generation of wealth with this resource. Our proximity agriculture has already espoused the model of the future in favour of short circuits and food security.
We need to help our farmers face the current international turmoil that is inflating input prices and we need to help them develop more sustainable practices. That is the future.
When it comes to critical minerals essential to the redevelopment of supply chains and the electrification of transportation, the only mines in operation in Canada are in our neck of the woods. We need to move from mines to batteries and become an essential link in the chain, especially when it comes to supplying North America.
Obviously, all that development needs to respect the highest environmental standards, in partnership with indigenous communities and with the agreement of local communities. It is good for the green economy, it is good for economic resilience, it is good for strategically positioning Quebec in a changing world.
Another one of Quebec's strengths is its creativity. A stagnant society struggles to cope with change. The antidote is creativity, and Quebec has that in spades. This is especially true for its arts and culture sector, so we must ensure that it maintains its vitality and influence, and the French language is the most vivid expression of that creativity. That being said, this same is true for all fields.
Yesterday's tinkerers are now working in artificial intelligence, creating the next video game, developing the next green finance instruments, working on the aeronautics industry of tomorrow. That is already the case. As Canada's technology hub, Quebec has what it takes to become silicon valley north, as long as we support our cutting-edge sectors.
Finally, there is our social model, particularly our tax and family policies. Because of them, wealth is more evenly distributed in Quebec than anywhere else on the continent. The middle class is larger in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada or the United States and, in a world that is under pressure, that guarantees a more peaceful life and social harmony. That is why it is so important to maintain the Quebec government's ability to take action, and that is why we must seriously address the fiscal imbalance that undermines that ability.
As with all of the expectations set out in the committee report we are discussing, the Bloc Québécois presented a series of requests covering many aspects of Quebec's economy. We outlined them here. They reflect the requests expressed by various sectors of Quebec society when consultations were held by all members of the Bloc Québécois. They respond to Quebec's real needs. They will help Quebec deal with all the existing crises and will make us more resilient. They will enable Quebec to embrace the future with confidence.
2764 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for seven years now, since 2015, the government has been saying it is looking into what it can do to reform EI.
The hon. parliamentary secretary tells us that the minister just said that she will take care of it and is still looking into it. Last year, she told us that she would present her reform this summer. Two seasons later, we are still waiting.
The government says that we are in an inflation crisis and that we may be heading into a recession. The Bloc is saying that the government needs to hurry up and ensure that EI is reformed before a potential recession hits, so that we have an automatic stabilizer and a social safety net in place. We do not want to end up with another CERB.
The Liberal minister promised us she would amend EI, but a Liberal promise is only worth something to those who want to believe the Liberals. We no longer believe them.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑32 contains 25 tax measures and about 10 non-tax measures. There are two kinds: minor legislative amendments and measures announced in the budget in the spring of 2022, last spring, that had not been included in the first implementation bill passed last June.
This means that this bill does not contain any measures to address the new economic reality of a high cost of living and a possible recession. As with the economic statement presented two weeks ago, there is nothing new, it is a rehash. The government thinks its measures are like shepherd's pie, better served as leftovers.
This is a bill with no point or certainty. It does not deserve to be applauded, but contains nothing to justify opposing it. Given current inflation and the risk of recession, the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable individuals, namely to increase health transfers, adequately support those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform employment insurance. Since the government chose to reject those proposals, we denounce this missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are expected in the coming months.
The Bloc Québécois had asked the government to agree to the unanimous request by Quebec and the other provinces to immediately, sustainably, and unconditionally increase health transfers. The health care system is stretched thin.
While emergency physicians warn us that our hospitals have reached their breaking point, the federal government is failing to act. The government clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the consensus among the provinces to convince them to agree to dilute their funding requests. That is exactly what the Liberal health minister said in the Quebec National Assembly: It is called predatory federalism.
We know too well that the fixed incomes of seniors do not allow them to cope with what are currently such pronounced increases in the cost of living. Seniors are those who are most likely to have to make difficult choices, such as groceries, medication or housing.
Madam Speaker, I am told that I must share my time with me esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
387 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:38:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the year ahead is going to be rough. A further rise in the key interest rate yesterday will increase household debt. The cost of living remains astronomically high, and there are fears of a recession. The government will have to make some tough choices in the economic update it is supposed to deliver a few weeks from now.
Spending money left and right would add fuel to the fire. For the government to turn its back on its fundamental responsibilities would be a mistake. It has to choose between discipline and austerity. Controlling spending is discipline. Turning its back on our most vulnerable is austerity.
Will the government side with our most vulnerable?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
