44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 19, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I recognize that the banking system is the lifeblood of the economy, but talking about banking can sometimes be a bit dry, so I would like to talk about something else today, which is populism. What is populism? It is a focus on the ideas, concerns and problems of the people, combined with the political will to make those ideas, concerns and problems the focus of government policy.
The Conservatives have appropriated the term “populist”, ascribing it exclusively to themselves and with virtuous meaning. What we are seeing, in effect, is Conservative virtue signalling, but in fact everyone in this House is a populist. Regardless of party, including those who are independent, we conceive our role as bringing the concerns of our constituents to Ottawa to influence government policy on their behalf.
The difference between populism and the Conservative conception of populism is that the Conservative conception of populism has a dimension of “us versus them”. This “us versus them” ideology finds fertile ground on the Internet. Internet-fuelled populism is like a twister. It is a—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 5:47:27 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are a couple of minutes in, and while I am a big fan of definitions of words and word origins, I would ask you to consider the point of relevance of the member's speech. He is going down a diatribe that has nothing to do with the actual technicalities of the bill.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 5:47:45 p.m.
- Watch
As the hon. member well knows, there is a lot of latitude until the hon. member gets to the relevance of the debate.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, internet-fuelled populism is like a twister. It is a twister that sucks in any and every manner of grievance against the so-called elites, the so-called gatekeepers, the experts or at least the well-informed. This twister is driven by conspiratorial narratives shared on and amplified by the Internet, more specifically social media.
They are narratives like vaccines do more harm than good; the government is insisting on vaccination to help the pharmaceutical giants; the World Economic Forum is secretly working to subjugate us to their dastardly interests and oppressive vision; and climate change is an idea promoted by eco-socialists and the world government villains at the United Nations who use Greta Thunberg as their apprentice.
This one was mentioned by the member opposite in his speech: The mainstream media is simply an arm of the government, and we cannot believe a word they say, even if what they say is well researched and supported by fact. Here is another conspiratorial narrative: The Bank of Canada is working hand in hand with the Liberal Minister of Finance to create inflation, especially asset price inflation, to benefit the Liberals' friends.
It all makes sense to a receptive but uncritical mind. Bill C-253 is intended to feed the conspiratorial populist narrative. There is not much to the bill itself. It is short. It is so short that it makes one wonder why even take the time to introduce and debate it.
The bill would require the Auditor General to be one of the auditors of the Bank of Canada. The bank's auditors are selected by the Minister of Finance and approved by cabinet. KPMG and Ernst & Young currently audit the bank. Bill C-253 impugns these independent auditors, suggesting that somehow they do not do their job properly, even though they are bound by professional codes of conduct.
The other problem with appointing the Auditor General as one of the bank's auditors is that the Auditor General is not equipped to audit the bank. The Auditor General's role is to audit departmental programs against stated goals and objectives and to highlight shortcomings in the effective execution of those programs. The audit process is meant to be constructive, but it is also, in essence, a critique of the government. Naturally, opposition parties use AG reports in their efforts to undermine public faith in the party in power.
This is fair game and an essential part of maintaining democratic accountability, but the Bank of Canada does not have programs per se. It has policy objectives and policy instruments. The success of its actions depends on a host of extraneous factors, such as government fiscal policy and international economic trends, including supply shocks and the like. These are all things the bank does not control, unlike a government department that has direct control over its programs.
The Auditor General does not have the capacity to cast credible judgments on the bank's policy performance in a dynamic economic context, as compared with the static context of bureaucratic programs. The trap the Auditor General could easily fall into if it were called on to judge the bank's economic policies, assuming it agreed to do so in the first place, is to come to tenuous if not potentially false conclusions masquerading as truth and fact, in the process undermining the bank's credibility with the public and risking a populist backlash.
What the sponsor of this bill does not seem to understand is that the bank's success in, say, meeting its inflation targets depends on the extent to which the public believes it will be successful in doing so. There is nothing worse for the economic welfare of Canadians than a public that has lost faith in the bank and a public that does not believe the bank can control inflation. This is what is at the heart of the dreaded wage-price spiral.
Bill C-253 is pure populism, a populist attempt to undermine public faith in a highly specialized institution, all being done for partisan political gain in a Conservative leadership race. As Andrew Coyne, who is hardly a Liberal apologist, has said:
Auditing the bank may make no practical difference to how it is governed, but that is not the point: The point is to suggest there is some sort of deep-state hanky-panky going on inside the bank, which only an outside audit could bring to light. The point is to demonize the bank, to discredit its leadership and undermine public confidence in its policies.... This is a particularly hazardous moment to be playing politics with the bank.
We have seen this movie before. We have seen what happens when Conservatives try to get their hands on independent public institutions like Elections Canada. There are a few of us here in the House who still remember the “unfair elections act” that the member for Carleton stickhandled on behalf of Stephen Harper at the time. Back then, the Conservatives invented a different bogeyman, one called “election fraud”, to justify voter suppression.
The word “conservative” encompasses many ideas and habits, none more important than prudence. The members opposite are not adhering to that Conservative value, a value that is alien to populism.
886 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, accountability is already enshrined in the Bank of Canada Act. This act requires that once a year, two independent firms are to audit the affairs of the bank simultaneously. The bank is the only federal Crown corporation subject to this requirement. The act also gives the Minister of Finance the authority to enlarge or extend the scope of the audit and to request special audits and reports.
Contrary to what the bill might suggest, the auditor general already has the authority to exercise an oversight role in certain areas of the bank's business functions. Specifically, she can review and audit the bank's operations and records related to its roles as the government's fiscal agent, advisor on public debt management, and manager of the exchange fund account.
The Bank of Canada Act also makes it clear that in the event that there is a difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on monetary policy, the minister may, after consultation with the governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the governor a written directive that shall be laid before Parliament.
The governor and deputy governor are regularly called to testify before committees of the House of Commons and the other place, including the Standing Committee on Finance, to be held accountable. I commend them for their willingness to appear and their transparency. I also thank them for systematically answering my questions in impeccable French.
In addition, there is also an Audit and Finance Committee, which has the mandate to review the bank's annual and interim financial statements; approve interim financial statements; make a recommendation to the board of directors with respect to the approval of the annual financial statements, as appropriate; oversee and ensure that the external and internal audit functions are carried out in an appropriate manner; review the adequacy of the bank’s risk management, internal control and governance framework with respect to financial reporting; and oversee the bank’s financial management, including the medium-term financial plan, the annual budget and expenditure reporting.
This bill is an expression of a philosophy and a strategy that should worry us, an attempt to cast doubt on the bank and undermine public confidence in this independent institution. That is exactly what we saw when the bill's sponsor was his party's leader and during the last election campaign. This strategy is still a factor in their leadership race.
The Bank of Canada is a complex institution, and it is difficult for the general public to understand. It just might be the perfect victim for politicians seeking a scapegoat for economic ups and downs. The current Conservative Party leadership hopeful openly attacks the Bank of Canada and has even promised to fire the bank's current governor. This same technique has already been used by none other than Donald Trump south of the border.
Firing the governor of the central bank just because the prime minister does not agree with the monetary policy could have a devastating impact on our economy, its stability and its attractiveness to investors. It would put us on par with banana republics where financial and monetary crises happen all the time.
It is of course perfectly appropriate and healthy to be able to criticize the work of a central bank and its governor. We are seeing this now. Economists have said that central bankers waited too long before raising interest rates. The governor has also been criticized for being slow to recognize that inflation was not transitory and that monetary policy tightening should have started well before 2022.
The Bank of Canada has recognized some of its own errors. In a speech given in Toronto on May 3, the deputy governor focused on the importance of maintaining public confidence in the central bank. She said the following:
So we are acutely aware that, with some of the extraordinary actions we have taken during the pandemic and with inflation well above our target, some people are questioning that trust.
To bring down inflation, the bank's current policy calls for a sharp rise in interest rates, followed by an end to the rollover of government bond assets held by the institution.
Once again, criticizing the central bank and its management of inflation is legitimate, but we must also take the time to explain the multiple causes of these price increases, which is a global phenomenon.
The rhetoric that tends to undermine public confidence in the Bank of Canada is beyond worrisome. It can have a real impact on the economy, and this bill seems to serve that rhetoric.
The Bank of Canada is a public entity separate from both the banking sector and the political process, let us not forget. Its fundamental responsibility is to guide the economy in the long-term best interests of the public.
The bank was created in 1934. The Bank of Canada Act established the bank as a Crown corporation with special status and considerable independence to conduct its business. The act sets out the bank's business and powers as they relate to its core responsibilities of monetary policy, the financial system, currency, funds management and, more recently, retail payments supervision. The act also provides for the operational independence the bank needs to carry out its activities and meet its responsibilities, free from political influence.
In other words, the act dictates what the bank does, but not how it does it.
Over the years, the bank has made major changes to how it achieves its mandate. The most significant was in 1991, when the government and the bank reached the country's first inflation-targeting agreement.
As its name indicates, it is a sort of contract between the bank and the government that establishes an inflation-control target but confers on the bank the authority to decide how it will achieve this target. The agreement has been renewed on a regular basis, most recently in 2021, following consultations.
From the signing of the first agreement 30 years ago to the most recent agreement, the inflation rate was kept to almost exactly 2% on average. The bank is working to return to that level of price increases while ensuring the economy's stability. I will repeat that it is facing disruptions at a global level, and we are confident it will succeed.
In closing, I would like to remind members that the bank has a board of directors composed of the governor, the senior deputy governor and 12 independent directors. The board of directors does not have a say in monetary policy decisions, which fall to the Governing Council, but it does have oversight of the bank's activities and finances. Its independent directors appoint the governor and the senior deputy governor, with the approval of the Governor in Council.
The bank also enjoys financial independence. The expenditures of the bank are financed by its own activities, and it therefore does not rely on public funding. Its budget is approved by the board of directors.
1185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill, but, quite frankly, I have been in this place for a few years now, and rarely have I seen such a hare-brained, preposterous bill as the one presented to us by the former leader of the Conservative Party.
Worst of all, this bill was introduced by someone who ran to be prime minister, but who is now sinking into a kind of crass partisan populism. I actually get the impression that this is a scheme to promote the member for Carleton in the current Conservative leadership race.
Let us turn to serious business. The bill focuses on the role of the Office of the Auditor General, one of the essential tools for our democratic quality of life, government accountability, and the proper functioning of government.
As an independent body, the office is able to go in, check the facts and see what really happened in a particular department, with a project, military or other equipment purchase, or government contract. It is able to see whether the rules and amounts were followed and whether taxpayer dollars were spent in a proper, reasonable and rational manner.
The office does extraordinary work. As an opposition member, I can say that we have often used the studies, reports and investigations of the Office of the Auditor General to ask questions of the government. It would have been difficult to get these data and studies otherwise.
The various commissioners, including the Commissioner of the Environment and the Commissioner of Official Languages, also do work that is essential to the proper functioning of Parliament and our democracy in general.
Unfortunately, under the government of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, the Office of the Auditor General's budget was cut. They wanted to clip the Auditor General's wings because he was saying things that were unpleasant for the government. He was the one who reminded us that the government had not done exactly this or that, that it had misspent money, that it had not complied with the rules, and so on. The message they wanted to send was that he was not going to have the resources to do his job.
Not only did the Conservatives make cuts to the human and financial resources of the Office of the Auditor General, but now they are introducing a bill giving the Office of the Auditor General a new mandate. The Office of the Auditor General does not have enough resources to audit the entire government, which is considerable, to turn over all the stones and ask all the right questions—
449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:04:47 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry for interrupting the hon. member, but the hon. member for Manicouagan has a point of order.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to know if there is quorum.
12 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:04:58 p.m.
- Watch
We will check.
And the count having been taken:
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): We have quorum. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
That is very kind.
I will take the next few minutes to review the purpose of this new bill introduced by the former Conservative leader. It is essentially designed to give more work to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, but to do what? To investigate the Bank of Canada? Why?
As my colleague before me already said, the Bank of Canada is already accountable to Parliament for its own administration, its work, its monetary policies and its decisions through House and Senate committees.
It seems that the reason behind this is to hype up the bill introduced by the member for Carleton, who is pointing the finger at Canada's central bank, accusing it of creating all our inflation woes and blaming it for the current decrease in purchasing power that Quebeckers and Canadians are unfortunately experiencing. As we said earlier, the Bank of Canada is not perfect and we have a duty to criticize it and to demand accountability.
This bill is a thinly veiled threat, an attempt by the Conservatives to intrude on and interfere with the Bank of Canada, an independent body. They are doing this for partisan and political purposes. They want to use the Office of the Auditor General for partisan purposes, in a thinly veiled threat to Canada's central bank.
This bill reeks of populism. I think it is pathetic that they are taking up hours of our time in Parliament to help give a Conservative Party leadership candidate some credibility on this issue.
Of course, from a libertarian or far-right economic perspective, the likes of which can be found in the ranks of the Conservative Party, no one blames anything on big business and the massive profits these companies are making. They think it is perfectly normal for the big oil companies and big grocery chains to profit off the pandemic, the crisis and the supply chain issues by unreasonably increasing prices at the expense of workers, the least fortunate and families that are struggling.
The Conservatives are leaning into right-wing populism and will never explain why billionaires should exist or why companies make billions of dollars at Canadians' expense. Instead, they blame the Bank of Canada.
I do not necessarily agree with dramatically raising interest rates as a way to fight inflation. It has tragic consequences for people who, for example, are already having trouble paying their mortgages and bills. That is one way to do it, but it is really not in the best interests of the poor, workers and the middle class. I will come back to that later if I have time.
They want to discredit Canada's central bank in order to give more credit to cryptocurrencies. I do not know whether anyone has been following what has been happening lately with the collapse of cryptocurrencies. They are not governed or controlled by anyone, and no one is accountable to anyone else.
Of course, cryptocurrencies are an unbridled capitalist's dream. I am not sure that this is the kind of society that we want to live in. I am not sure that we should be telling people to trust this virtual currency and that this is how the country's currency is going to be run from now on, because some shadowy forces are controlling the evil Bank of Canada and that this is not in everyone's best interests.
This is really a bill that is being used for partisan purposes, for the leadership race that is going on right now.
If we want to point the finger at those largely responsible for the current price increases, then we must not be afraid to look at the facts and see who exactly is lining their pockets right now at the expense of the average citizen.
The Association des distributeurs d'énergie du Québec recently published a chart to make comparisons between the number of cents in the price at the pump between 2008 and 2022, that is attributable to different factors. In 2008, the price of oil was 84¢, while it is at 91¢ this month, May 2022.
That is not a huge increase. Pollution pricing rose from 1¢ to 9¢. Taxes have gone up, but not that much, just from 45¢ to 60¢. The refining margin, in contrast, has gone up from 9¢ to 48¢. That is the biggest contributor to rising pump prices over the last 15 years, and it is profit for big corporations like Suncor and Imperial Oil, which made billions in profits in the first quarter of this year.
We have to be able to tell people the truth. We have to be able to tell them that there are solutions other than raising interest rates. The NDP has solutions to help people get through this crisis. Increase the GST tax credit, which helps hundreds of thousands of people in Quebec and across Canada, and increase the Canada child benefit, which is a good way to redistribute wealth.
We need to be able to tax these companies that are making billions of dollars in profits so that we can redistribute that money to the people who really need it, people who are suffering right now and struggling to pay their rent and buy groceries.
There are other solutions. I would point out that, in this morning's edition of Le Devoir, a dozen economists went over different ways we could be helping people, including regulating Airbnb rentals, lowering the cost of public transit, building massive numbers of social housing units and bringing in rent control. Not all of these measures would come from the federal government, but there are some excellent ideas and solutions.
What is currently before us is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous for our democratic institutions.
977 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I am so happy to see so many people rushing into the House to listen to my speech.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, New Brunswick is large in its mind, and it is large in its geography as well. Thank you for recognizing me and permitting me to address this important piece of legislation. I should remind the House and members here that when we cut right through it, inflation is the price that we and all Canadians pay for the things that the government told us would be free. That really cuts to the core of this debate and why this bill is so important.
Parliamentary oversight and accountability are key pillars of our democracy that we as legislators should be determined to protect and safeguard. Members of Parliament have a great deal of respect for the work done over the decades by Canada's auditors general, along with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the other independent offices of Parliament. As chairman of the public accounts committee, I have heard from our current Auditor General, Ms. Hogan, and her deputy, Mr. Hayes, on a number of occasions this year. I can say that MPs from both sides of this chamber welcome their analysis on the machinery of government, through audits of federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
The Auditor General's office has historically performed a valuable service to Canadian taxpayers. Their work informs us in this House of both the missteps and the achievements that come from fulfilling policies and programs implemented by the Government of Canada. With few exceptions, these policies and programs are tied to mandates given to them by the executive, that is the cabinet. Of course, those mandates come ultimately from Canada's voters. When civil servants do not adhere to these mandates, it is on us, as parliamentarians, to hold them accountable and to make course corrections.
As such, I wholeheartedly support Bill C-253 to bring the Bank of Canada under the purview of the Auditor General by including the central bank under section 85 of the Financial Administration Act. What this bill would do is authorize the Auditor General to include the Bank of Canada in her normal audit cycle, which means the Bank of Canada would be subject to the same types of routine audits that Crown corporations and departments undergo. That is it. At its core, this is about accountability and transparency, and adherence to its mandate and Parliament.
I applaud the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for introducing this bill, because he, like me, wants accountability from the Bank of Canada to ensure it adheres to its mandate. Some hon. members protest that MPs should not examine or even criticize the Bank of Canada, because it is independent, but this is a view out of step with democratic oversight in the United States, Britain and other countries where lawmakers are today vigorously debating what their central banks got wrong. We can just turn to a couple of headlines, which read, “Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said the central bank erred in waiting to address inflation”, and “The Fed's slow response to inflation was a mistake”.
Another one, from the Financial Times, states, “MPs turn on bank's handling of economy as [British] government feels heat from cost of living crisis”. In fact, even here in Canada, the media are reporting about Bank of Canada officials. In this case, “Carolyn Rogers says the Bank of Canada is learning from its mistakes”, yet some feel that this House has no role in this debate.
Historically, the Bank of Canada has been focused on a stable rate of inflation, and the bank's previous governors successfully kept inflation under control. It was not always easy and it required work, independence and a focus on results. However, in recent years, the bank's references to employment targets has been a consideration. If colleagues look at the bank's website or listen to speeches that officials have made, other considerations are now being added by bank officials in its considerations.
More recently, the bank has also started to indicate that other goals, such as environmental and social objectives, would or could influence policy. Since the pandemic, the Liberal government's deficit spending program has been underwritten almost exclusively through the bank's use of quantitative easing. That is a fancy word for expanding the money supply, which is a polite way of saying “printing money”.
As my hon. colleague just pointed out, when we expand the money supply, we dilute or reduce its value, and that is what has happened today in Canadian wallets. Their paycheques and their savings are worth less than they previously were.
How has all of this worked out? As members of Parliament, we should not be afraid to ask, to probe questions and to seek answers. The bill we are considering would allow the Auditor General to conduct audits of the bank through its normal 10-year cycle. Such audits include performance evaluations, something that is not happening now as it would go beyond the fiscal balance sheet examinations.
This is an important and key addition, particularly since the central bank is implementing monetary policies that are without precedent, and this will have massive implications for things like interest rates, inflation, growth and household incomes going forward. It is necessary that the Bank of Canada be subject to more transparency and accountability by Parliament.
Of course, there is precedent for allowing the Auditor General to have jurisdiction over arm's-length independent financial institutions. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board operates free of political interference but is still subject to the Auditor General's oversight. This bill follows virtually the same model by amending the Financial Administration Act's exemption for the Bank of Canada to match the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Again, we are calling for the Bank of Canada to be covered in a way that other arm's-length agencies are.
Let us return to mandates and accountability. The Bank of Canada and its governor, Tiff Macklem, wield an extreme amount of power by setting our nation's monetary policy, not economic policy, as one of the members on the government bench said, but monetary policy.
I would argue that the bank's governor is the most powerful unelected civil servant in Canada. At the same time, he is bound by the mandate of his office and therefore subject to accountability, for us to ask how this governor is doing in his job. Unlike other institutions that report to Parliament, the Bank of Canada is audited by external auditors, who are appointed by cabinet on the recommendation of the finance minister. Therein lies the problem. There is not enough oversight or independence.
The bank is responsible for maintaining low and stable inflation, a safe and secure currency, financial stability and the efficient management of government funds and public debt, but at its very core, the governor is responsible for keeping the rate of inflation between 1% and 3%. How is he doing? The rate of inflation, in this country, has hit 6.8%. That is a 30-year high and not a record of success.
Political elites do not want MPs or Canadians to talk about the Bank of Canada's shortcomings. This is to protect the governor from proper and legitimate criticism, yet Governor Macklem has blown Canada's inflation targets and, in doing so, was cozy with the Liberal government.
He should have done his job instead of echoing government talking points about non-existent fiscal anchors. The incestuous relationship between the Liberal government and the Bank of Canada should never have been permitted to develop.
Because the Bank of Canada did not properly perform its job, Canadian households are paying a high price and, I fear, will pay a high price for years to come. Interest rate hikes will be more punishing, and price increases will last longer than had an independent Bank of Canada acted sooner.
Instead of talking about the punishing financial hit on Canadian families and businesses, these gatekeepers, to shield the governor from legitimate public scrutiny, cried, “Respect the bank's independence.” Those cries ring hollow after the governor failed to exercise his own independence from the Liberals. The bank should be held accountable for its errors. This is not interference. This is accountability.
This bill is a modest reform to grant Parliament some oversight, since the Auditor General's audits would be tabled in Parliament and studied by its members. It would bring Canada's Parliament in step with other democracies in probing the Bank of Canada's implementation of its mandate. It would allow MPs to hold the Bank of Canada accountable and to ask and seek answers.
Conservatives do not wish to diminish the Bank of Canada's independence, but we want to ensure it is acting independently while fulfilling its mandate to control inflation. I support this bill, and I urge others to do likewise.
1495 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the outset of listening to the debate in this House and reading the text of this bill, I cannot help but wonder if the Conservatives have lost faith in the Bank of Canada. I know they are going to say they just want accountability and they just want to have proper oversight. However, as pointed out, not just by Liberals but by members from the Bloc and the NDP, this goes a lot further than just looking for accountability and oversight. This plays into that narrative that, quite honestly, the member for Carleton, who is the perceived next leader of the Conservative Party, is feeding. He is feeding that narrative, and it is the narrative that they do not have faith in one of the most important institutions in our country. Have the members across the way lost faith in the Bank of Canada?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, we just heard a yes. I heard a yes that was heckled across the way. I did not realize the answer was going to be that easy. I thought I was going to have to fight for it.
Madam Speaker, it goes to the heart of the issue, and the heart of the issue here is that this idea and this politicization of the Bank of Canada, which is being led by the member for Carleton and those who support him, for nothing more than the gains that they can make out of this populist movement, is exactly what we are seeing.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asked a question earlier: Will all Conservatives support this? He stood up and said that yes, they would. I am really interested to see the vote from the member for Abbotsford, because he was extremely critical, and he agreed that the politicization of the Bank of Canada “undermines the party's credibility on economic issues”. That is the member for Abbotsford, the same member who was ousted for making a comment like this, just last night.
An hon. member: He resigned.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I am sorry. I am corrected, Madam Speaker. He resigned. He was given the opportunity to resign. I thank the Conservative member across the way for correcting that.
This is about populism. That has been well documented, and not just by the member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier but indeed by other political parties in here. I am very glad to see that it is extremely clear what is going on here, and I look forward to my seven minutes that remain the next time this comes up for debate.
444 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Putin's horrific actions in Ukraine are killing children, women and elders, and displacing millions of Ukrainians who are fleeing for safety.
Since 2017, the NDP has been calling for visa-free access for Ukrainians. It is unfortunate that this has not been put in place, as it would have been the most efficient way to get people to safety. Instead, the government opted for a visa process.
Canada's immigration backlog now exceeds two million people, with significant backlogs in every stream. The minister said that he was going to fix the problem, but the situation is actually getting worse, not better.
The promise of a two-week turnaround time in processing of the Canada Ukraine emergency travel visa is just fiction. In fact, Ukrainians could not even get an appointment to get their biometrics done in two weeks. Not only that, the minister announced an extended family reunification measure for Ukrainian nationals on March 3. It has been over two and a half months, and there is still no indication of when details of the family reunification PR program stream will be launched.
Aside from the issue of processing visas and travel documents, the government is now relying on Air Miles to help Ukrainians get to safety. I certainly hope that this does not replace what is absolutely essential, which are evacuation flights. If it does, it is clearly not a very reliable way to help Ukrainians get to safety. Not only that, but it will also not help those who need to leave now.
What will happen when there are no more Air Miles points available? How will Ukrainians know that they can access points? For booking flights, points are extremely limited as there are limited seats available for each flight. As such, it could be very difficult for Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war to get to safety.
Ukrainians in need of getting to safety are mired in red tape with delays in getting emergency visas. Now, they need to wait for Air Miles points to be available and hope that they can get a seat to get to Canada. Let us imagine that. The Liberal government needs to realize that this not a vacation for Ukrainian nationals. People are trying to get to safety. They are fleeing a war, and they are in a desperate situation. Canada should be partnering with Air Canada and organizing evacuation flights for Ukrainians.
Because the immigration stream made available to Ukrainians is a temporary visitor stream, concerns that they will not have the support they need are escalating. Even though the Prime Minister announced that there would be income support for them a month ago, so far there is no information on when or how they will be able to access the support. There is not even clarity on how much income support they would get or how long it would be made available to them. This cannot carry on. Also, children would not qualify for the Canada child benefit, yet we know that newcomers rely on that support to support their access to safe housing.
Provinces have said that they would help, but it is not enough. We need the federal government to bring forward a national program to address this issue and to ensure equitable access and support for all Ukrainian nationals.
556 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:29:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise to answer the member's question. Canada stands firm in its support for Ukraine. Ukrainian immigrants are an important part of Canada's cultural history, and we continue to support the courageous Ukrainian people
More than 32,000 Ukrainians have arrived in Canada since January 1 of this year. As part of our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or the IRCC, introduced the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel. This fast-track temporary residence visa is designed to help Ukrainians seeking a safe haven in Canada while war continues in their home country.
As of May 1, we have received approximately 240,000 applications under this new program and have approved over 111,000. We are meeting our target of 14 days for processing applications. We are committed to processing 80% of applications within 14 days, and we continue to meet that standard.
On May 10, the Minister of Immigration announced that three charter flights would be offered to approved Ukrainians and their families under the emergency program. The IRCC will be sending an email to those who have received their visas to come to Canada under the emergency program to let them know how they can book seats on these charters. The flights will be available on a first‑come, first‑served basis, and will depart from Warsaw, Poland, arriving in Winnipeg on May 23, Montreal on May 29, and Halifax on June 2.
Protecting people from danger and integrating them into a new community and a new country is just the beginning. Ukrainians will need support once they arrive in Canada, and that is why we have announced that Ukrainians will have access to hotel stays for up to two weeks and income support for up to six weeks.
The IRCC is issuing open work and study permits to Ukrainian nationals and their families who are currently in Canada and cannot return home safely, allowing them to extend their stay in Canada for up to three years. In addition, on March 30 of this year, the Government of Canada announced temporary federal support to help eligible Ukrainians arriving under the new program to settle into their new communities.
These extended settlement program services, which are typically only available to permanent residents, will be available until March 31, 2023, and include the following: language training; information about and orientation to life in Canada, such as help with enrolling children in school; information and services to help access the labour market, including mentoring, networking, counselling, skills development and training; activities that promote connections with communities; assessments of other needs Ukrainians may have; services targeted to the needs of women, seniors, youth and LGBTQ2+ persons; and other settlement supports.
We will continue to do more to welcome Ukrainians seeking refuge here in Canada from Putin's war as quickly as possible, and we will take care of them when they get here.
504 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government is very good at making announcements, but the reality is that it actually has not followed up. The parliamentary secretary just talked about the income support for Ukrainians. Where is it? How can people access it? Where is the information for people to obtain that support? I have constituents who are hosting Ukrainians and they do not know where they can get that support. It is simply not there, even though the announcement was made by the Prime Minister weeks ago. Talk is cheap. We need to actually act on it and put those programs in place.
Finally, it is absolutely essential that the government does not rob Peter to pay Paul, and that it ensures that refugees from other countries are also supported, so agencies and resettlement agencies are not stuck without the support that they need for all those other countries. They all deserve support. The government also needs to take action to ensure resettlement services agencies have the capacity to do this work.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:34:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to have a conversation with the hon. member. I am very happy to report on the settlement. Earlier this year, we made an announcement that we were going forward with $35 million for our rural and small communities. I had the privilege last week to go to Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan, where I announced $14.2 million that will be distributed among 11 rural communities. We have been there since day one with our Ukrainian community. We will continue to be there and support them, and I am very proud of the actions that our government has taken.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 6:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight on this adjournment debate. I want to acknowledge I am standing here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
The question I am pursuing tonight I originally asked on April 27, so it had not been long since we had received the final chapter of the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with its most dire warnings ever.
I asked the Prime Minister how it could be, given we had been told by the IPCC that emissions must peak globally by 2025 and drop dramatically from there to at least half by 2030, that two days later the government approved the Bay du Nord project, and how it could be that, three days later, the budget included continuing to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, while somehow transferring that monstrosity to indigenous ownership.
The Prime Minister's answer, as ever, was that the government was doing so much and had committed $100 billion to be spent between 2016 and 2030. One hundred billion dollars is a lot of money, but it does not save us. The government's plan does not come close to holding to 2°C or 1.5°C.
We are facing some very serious realities, and talking points will not do. I have to admit that I made an error in my question of April 27. On how bad things were, I quoted from the IPCC lead author, who said that it was “now or never”. I read the report of the IPCC as saying, as I just did, that we had until 2025 globally to ensure that emissions had peaked and dropped from there. I was wrong.
I went back and reread page 22 of the “Summary for Policymakers” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report. We do not have until 2025; we have less time. The quote is that “global emissions must peak between 2020 and, at the latest, before 2025”.
This is not a political debate. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary is as good and decent a person as we are ever going to find in this place, and the minister is a good person and the Prime Minister is a good person, but it does not matter. The difference between policies developed by good people who fall short on climate change and policies by people who do not believe climate change exists, in the words of Bill McKibben, one of our leading champions for climate action globally, is losing more slowly.
The Liberal plan before us does not deal with the science. It does not. Setting net-zero by 2050 as if it means anything is spin. It is not science. Net-zero by 2050 is only relevant if global emissions peak before 2025 and drop rapidly from there.
I know what the hon. minister has said in this place about Bay du Nord and the emissions not being Canada's problem. Really? When did he lose his moral compass? The emissions do not matter if they happen somewhere else? Canada is to continue to increase producing oil and gas? It is not our problem if the emissions in other countries condemn our children to an unlivable world? That is what we are talking about; nothing less than that.
When we have a choice between now or never, please do not choose never.
579 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
