44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, we have already stated our position on this bill. I will not elaborate on the fact that cryptocurrency or cryptoassets are not well understood, that they are growing rapidly, that we have no control over them and that they facilitate money laundering and speculation. We have already talked a lot about those aspects.
It is hard to know the implications of all of this, even after talking to economists. Since the Bloc Québécois has already gone over much of that, I want to provide more of a macroeconomic analysis. That is something I know a little more about.
The existence of cryptocurrency causes problems with state economic intervention. Let me explain why. In his 1776 work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith made the groundbreaking assertion that money and currency were just a veil and not worthy of our attention. According to Adam Smith, money and currency are like watching a play with the curtains down: The actors perform the play behind the curtains, but the spectators see only the curtains and cannot observe the economic life that takes place behind the curtains. This is why, according to Adam Smith, we should take an interest not in money and currency, but in the actors, in the economy in the true sense of the word, and in the different economic forces that interact.
Later on, it was suggested that money is not necessarily something useful. During the crisis of the 1930s, GDP fell by 40% over three years and the unemployment rate was 25%. Very little was done to help the unemployed. It was a catastrophe.
Upon analyzing that economic crisis with some hindsight, it is pretty clear that all the factors that could contribute to a collective collapse were there. Monetary delinquency was one of the reasons why that crisis was so severe, and I use the term “monetary delinquency” because, at that time, people did not believe that monetary policy was very important to the economy. The various players had been allowed to act in a decentralized way, and people later realized that this had aggravated the crisis. During that severe economic crisis, interest rates went up, which further depressed economic growth, after it had already naturally dropped off.
This is where another great economist, John Maynard Keynes, came in and said that governments had a role to play and that they must intervene in the economy. He began telling the government that it had to use its two arms of intervention, the fiscal or budgetary arm and the monetary arm. He helped people understand that monetary policy can be very important to the economy and can change the macroeconomic situation in different countries.
Keynes said at the time that intervention was needed in those two areas, and it just so happens that the Bank of Canada was created in 1935. The bank was created precisely so that the Canadian government could intervene more intelligently in order to ensure the economic well-being of Canadians.
The fundamental objective of the Bank of Canada is to ensure the economic well-being of Canadians. Top economists have worked at Canada's central bank, which is renowned around the world. It is one of the leading banks because it takes its role seriously, it is intelligent and it is there to serve the economic needs of citizens. No leading economist believes that the Bank of Canada does not act in the interest of the well-being of Canadians. By the way, it is beyond the reach of political power.
This led to the creation of monetary policy using fluctuating interest rates to intervene in the economy. Little by little, some economists noticed that the Bank of Canada could influence production, but only in the short term. When it intervenes, its actions tend to have long-term effects on inflation. This is when monetarists came on the scene saying that the Bank of Canada's only job was to control inflation. To understand this, we must go back to the 16th century when Jean Bodin came up with the quantity theory of money.
He was saying that printing money always leads to inflation. Back in the day, the great explorers of America came with a lot of gold, which was the currency at the time. Prices skyrocketed while production had not really changed. That is when it became clear that the important thing when working on and dealing with currency is to keep an eye on long-term inflation.
In the 1990s, the Bank of Canada used the central bank only to control price levels. Its fundamental objective of ensuring the well-being of Canadians turned into an economic objective. The Bank of Canada ensured that prices remained stable. Inflation was allowed to oscillate between 1% and 3% with an ideal target of 2%. The Bank of Canada was the second bank in history to be that transparent, after the Bank of New Zealand.
Why is it so transparent? It is very simple. Between the time when the Bank of Canada intervenes on interest rates and the time that its actions impact inflation, there are several economic agents who intervene. Plus, that time span can stretch up to two years. It is very complex. The economists at the Bank of Canada are not clowns; they are not performers who get overly agitated. No, they are intelligent, hard-working people. They have extraordinary tools. They can tell us the value of the money supply at a given time and how much money, in its various forms, is circulating in the economy. That is what the Bank of Canada does. The more accurate and transparent the bank is, the greater the impact and efficiency. The goal is to improve the central bank's efficiency.
Then cryptocurrency comes and puts a wrench in the works. By introducing cryptocurrency into the economy, by giving it an increasing role, the central bank's connection to interest rates becomes weaker. There is also an impact on the consequences the inflation rate has on the economy. In the end, this is another currency that is out of the bank's control, that is unfamiliar and that will, quite simply, disrupt the well-informed connection that has been created between the Bank of Canada and inflation.
Bodin's quantity theory of money states that the greater the money supply, the more it feeds inflation. This means that the more cryptocurrency there is, the more money there will be, and the more inflation there will be. Conservatives, who fight inflation day and night, want to bring in another money product to further increase inflation. Do they have an economist in their party?
1126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do have a degree in economics. I want to talk about why this bill is so important and ask the member to reconsider.
When Bernie Madoff ran his Ponzi scheme, we did not seek to ban email or ban phones because he used those to lure victims, and we did not try to vilify the entire investment services industry because of one bad actor. What we did was seek to strengthen safeguards to ensure that bad governance and “too good to be true” schemes were not taking place anymore. We sought to educate people so they would not be lured into schemes, and most importantly, we said we need to do these things so this sector that is important to our economy can continue to grow.
I am very concerned by, in Parliament, the words and speeches on this bill, which is fully amendable. It can go to committee, and every single different party can edit the scope of the framework. I made it purposely non-partisan. The reason “growth” is in the title is that the toothpaste is out of the tube on Web3 technologies, and cryptocurrencies are but a small, infinitesimal drop in the bucket of how our economy and our society are changing by blockchain technology.
It is called “Web3” for a reason. If we think about Web1 as our just being able to read a site on the Internet, and then Web2 as being things like Facebook where we can read and write, Web3 means that individuals can own data and digital assets. For each of us in this place, and probably in the broader Canadian economy right now, the production value of our data might be greater than the value of the labour we provide. Thus how can we sit here and say we should not be putting together a growth framework that provides all the safeguards we have been talking about here for an area of the economy that we so desperately need?
I represent a riding in Alberta, and I hear, day after day, colleagues of different political stripes talking about how the people who work in my community in natural resource-based jobs need to transition away from these jobs into digital-economy based jobs. Digital asset jobs are the very jobs we all are talking about. It is those jobs, but we have had the Bloc Québécois who, on behalf of their colleagues and the people in Quebec, make the argument that we need fewer natural resource-based jobs and more digital economy jobs, and the speech they gave was that we need to not support this growing more, but to restrict it, and similarly the government said the same thing.
I do not want to ascribe motive, that this is what my colleagues meant to say, but I want them to understand what investors hear when they listen to this debate, and investors are listening to this. They say not to invest in Canada, because politicians in Parliament are willing to get cheap political points. We are talking about making a decision on an industry over cheap political points, instead of doing something that resembles work at committee.
I could have picked any private member's bill. I could have picked the national day for something and gotten a big win, but instead I tried to pick something that was one of the hardest things for us to deal with as a Parliament, and I tried to do it in a non-partisan, non-prescriptive way, so that if this bill got to committee, everybody in this place could amend it. Why would we leave this to happen behind closed doors in the government, if it happens at all, without the input of industry?
If we allow that to happen, the result is things like Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin's organization, which now has a market cap of over $150 billion. All of those jobs and all of that capital, even though he is Canadian, are in Switzerland, because they have a legislative framework. The Americans have a legislative framework. The Europeans have a legislative framework, yet we are sitting here trading partisan barbs, instead of talking about how we grow a sector that could be the solution to all of our job problems in this country.
Yes, we need safeguards. Yes, we need better rules, but we are the ones who are supposed to do that. Why are we abdicating this responsibility? I do not want to look back in 10 years on this debate and say we missed an opportunity because of partisanship. Members should go back to their colleagues on Wednesday, have a caucus meeting and support this bill through to committee stage.
798 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 12:01:53 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 12:02:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 12:05:36 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just cannot believe this is happening again.
The Liberal government ran on promises in elections that it was not going to shut down debate, yet it does it all the time. It is no wonder there are no Canadians who believe them any more. However, I am surprised that the NDP is supporting this unholy marriage, this costly coalition. They used to have principles on time allocation, and used to not allow it. It boggles the mind.
How are the people of Sarnia—Lambton supposed to have their voices heard in this place when I have not even had a chance to speak to Bill C-32?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think some facts are in order.
Already with this very important piece of legislation, which will get much-needed support to Canadians, we have had 18 hours of debate and 120 interventions, and there will be a lot more opportunity at second reading for members in all parties to debate this really important piece of legislation.
The time has come for us to get to the next stage, because Canadians I have talked to are very much looking forward to having no more interest on their student loans, and they are looking forward to the supports in the fall economic statement, which is why we need to get to second reading.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is reasonable for us to get as much time as we need to debate this bill. That is called parliamentary democracy.
The opposition parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, noticed a few things missing from the economic update, such as support for seniors 65 and up and support for seasonal workers. Those workers contributed to EI, but now the number of qualifying hours they have to work to be eligible for EI benefits has changed.
It is important to get the space we need to debate all that, share proposals with the government and potentially improve the bill. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Minister of National Revenue express astonishment that the opposition parties do not want to rush this bill through and are not supportive of the time allocation motion. She accused them of being mentally unstable.
That is pretty serious. The minister said that last spring in response to an opposition colleague, and she did it again on a local radio station in Gaspé.
I wonder if my colleague supports those statements and agrees with her.
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my Bloc Québécois colleague when it come to this issue.
I think that it is worth noting that we really need to do our homework as parliamentarians when it comes to House procedure and the important Bill C-32 in order to provide Quebeckers and Canadians with the support they so desperately need.
With regard to the duration of the debate, I want to mention that we have had 18 hours of debate and 120 speeches so far. As members are well aware, the issue can be examined more closely during the in-depth discussions held in committee and members will have more opportunities to speak there. Members will also be able to debate the bill at third reading.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative and Bloc colleagues, and they do not seem to understand our parliamentary system and the importance of sending bills to committee.
We have had a week of debate. The bill contains important measures, such as waiving the interest on student loans. In the past, we have seen the Conservatives try to block economic updates for months on end. These measures must be put in place. The NDP put pressure on the government to waive interest on student loans because we want students to be able to benefit from that. It is also important to send the bill to committee so that it can be improved.
Why do the other parties not seem to want to send the bill to committee, where they could propose amendments?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question.
We are grateful for the NDP's support in the House to move this bill forward to the committee stage.
This is a serious situation. The supports in this bill will help Canadians at a time when they need it most. As my colleague said, we need to eliminate interest on student loans, cut taxes for small but growing businesses and make it more affordable to buy a first home.
My constituents have asked me to take action here in Parliament to provide that help, and that is what we are doing today.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, rising yet again on a time allocation debate, I am reminded of when, in previous Parliaments, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper used time allocation again and again and again. I sat in that corner with the Liberals when they were the third party. Consistently, every time, they said that if we allow this to happen, eventually Parliament and democracy will be diminished and time allocations will become so routine that they are used over and over again in future Parliaments. I think I am the last standing member of the opposition to Stephen Harper's use of time allocations for almost every bill. It has, as we worried, become routine. I will never vote for a time allocation on a bill. Even when, as is the case here, I support Bill C-32, I object to the truncation of time. It diminishes Parliament's work.
I do, though, sympathise with the governing party in that because we have ignored our rules for so long, nobody remembers that it is against Westminister parliamentary rules to give a written speech. I maintain that House leaders, when meeting together, should give an honest assessment to each other of how many members they really have who can speak to a bill without a written speech, without notes, and contribute to a thoughtful debate. I lament where we are right now, and this can be regarded as more a comment than a question, because the Liberals have completely forgotten all the reasons they used to warn that the use of time allocation for almost every bill was anti-democratic.
266 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her support of Bill C-32. I was not on the opposition benches at time to which she is referring. As a member and as a minister, I can say that I talked to Brad in my riding this week, who thanked us for making sure we got Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 done so quickly, because he wanted and needs the $500 housing support in that legislation. On the weekend, I talked to Mike and Laurie, who thanked us for our child care supports. They said to me at the All is Bright festival, “It's making a real difference, and we're able to make it through this inflationary cycle.”
There are millions of other Canadians waiting for us to get to work, to get to committee and to get Bill C-32 passed so that the people who need the help the most can get those supports when they need them the most.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the very fact that we are having this debate is disappointing enough, but it is even more disappointing to hear once again how the New Democrats have completely surrendered to the Liberal Party and become literally the lapdogs of the Liberal government. I was on the finance committee—
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I know the member is a little cranky and a little upset because nobody is paying attention, but the word “lapdog” is unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw that.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 12:15:03 p.m.
- Watch
I do not know if it is unparliamentary, but it is not very nice. I will take note of the comment and verify.
The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I will spare you the research and I will withdraw the term if that would please you, Madam Speaker.
I was on the finance committee with the House leader of the New Democratic Party and I remember a time when he took seriously his obligation as a member of the opposition to oppose legislation where necessary and actually to take seriously parliamentary norms and the parliamentary duties and responsibilities of a member elected in opposition to the government. It is very disappointing—
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member knows that the NDP takes things seriously. That is why we have dental care now in this country, rental supplements and a doubling—
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
