Debates of May 11th, 2021

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, answering this question will probably finish off the answer to the previous one as well.

When I say there is no plan, I mean there is no fiscal plan for how to come back to balance. A situation where it takes 34 years to get back to where we were pre-pandemic, which was still out of control at that time, with many years of deficit financing and increased debt of about $80 billion even at that, is not good enough.

It is really irresponsible to look at the situation Canadians are in, the situation we are putting Canadians in, and to say that we would not have an accountability program for 34 years.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the countless families facing bankruptcy and financial collapse.

One of the things I have been hearing across the country is about the seniors omitted from the budget, those aged 65 to 74. They are angry, frustrated and disappointed, as they only have the GIS and OAS to live on. I am hearing this as the critic for seniors. I want to know what the member is hearing in his riding on the issue of seniors being omitted.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that observation, and his question from that observation as well. Certainly, seniors are telling me that they are concerned about the levels that have been imposed upon us by the Liberal government in this activity as well in this budget.

Seniors have suffered a great deal through the pandemic. With the vaccine rollout, I was very much in favour of their being vaccinated up front, for many of them, along with our frontline workers, who have done a great job as best they can with the vaccines that they were limited in getting. That is certainly a good observation that my colleague has heard and one that I have heard as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I notice that many members are interested in participating in the question and comment time, which is quite normal for budget bills and their ilk, so we should be able to get at least three exchanges in that five-minute period of time, sometimes even more. I would ask hon. members to keep their observations and their questions concise, and the same goes for the member who is responding to those questions, and we will see if we can give more members the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after a record two years, Canadians were finally provided with the federal budget. Unfortunately, it was the longest wait in our nation's history in some of the most troubling times in a generation.

Before I begin addressing the budget and the impact it will have on the people I represent, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on making history. Last month, she became the first woman to deliver a federal budget in Canadian history, and for that I applaud her. This is a historic step forward in inspiring women across our country.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government has a problem, a spending problem. It has said that increasing the national debt to an unimaginable $1.4 trillion is to stimulate the economy, but we all know the only thing the government is focused on is stimulating voters. It is obvious the Prime Minister is more focused on keeping his job than on doing his job. By next year, he will have accumulated more national debt than all previous prime ministers combined.

One of the world's most respected investors, Warren Buffett, famously said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” The current government does not understand the difference between the two. It is more focused on how large the price tag is instead of how much value it will bring to Canadians.

The foundation to any good economic policy is to measure the output or the results. The federal government has tried to justify that its record-breaking deficit is a strategic investment so our economy can come roaring back, but that is not the case. This budget fails to provide a real plan for job creation and long-term economic growth. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister's former adviser questioned this budget. He admitted the Liberals are, “doubling down on programs that do not address our innovation shortcomings and have yielded few results to date.” Where is the plan for coherent growth? Where is the plan to be competitive on the world stage? Where is the plan to foster an economic environment that allows the agriculture, forestry and tourism industries to thrive? There is no plan because the government is fixated on price instead of value.

My constituents know what happens when governments spend money without a plan. They understand because they have experienced it before. It was the Prime Minister's father who famously took the same approach in the 1980s, with record deficits, reckless spending, no fiscal guardrails and no plan. As a result, Canadians suffered a debt crisis. My constituents can remember the all-time high interest rates, the extreme inflation, the record unemployment rates and the massive increase in poverty. My constituents are concerned about spending without a plan because they have lived through the damage before.

I think of Diane in Minitonas, who reached out to me and expressed her concerns regarding the budget. She is concerned this budget is unaffordable for Canadians. As a mother of four, she is worried about the future of her children, who will have to pay for the record spending. I share her concerns. My constituents are seeking a plan in this budget that would outline the future of our recovery from this pandemic, but they did not get one. I represent thousands of locally owned and operated businesses throughout rural Manitoba. Agriculture, forestry, tourism and hospitality are the foundations of the communities and families of our region. Whether it be the businesses surrounding and within Riding Mountain National Park that rely on tourism or the restaurants and coffee shops that rely on regular local visitors, the small businesses that I represent want certainty for a secure economic future. What they are not seeking is a reimagined economy.

The finance minister sees things differently from my constituents. She has stated that the COVID-19 pandemic “has created a window of political opportunity”. Thousands of Canadians have died, jobs have been lost and businesses have been shuttered, but the government sees the tragedy as a political opportunity.

I recently heard from an outfitter in my riding who relies on business from American clientele. She is frustrated that the government refuses to discuss what the future will look like with our American neighbours post-pandemic. Unfortunately, because the federal government has failed to provide our country with enough vaccines, it cannot have these important conversations.

While other developed nations reopen for travel and business, Canada is experiencing a third wave because of this Prime Minister's own incompetence. Premiers across Canada have called on the federal government to increase health care funding. However, this budget has no new money for health care transfers to provinces such as Manitoba. In a time when the federal government should be stepping up to support the provincial health care system, the Liberals turned a blind eye in their budget.

The seniors in this country were also disappointed to read this Liberal budget. Once again, the current government has failed our seniors by not providing them the support they need. Seniors across my constituency are telling me that they can no longer afford to live with dignity on a fixed income, due to the rising cost of living.

I will admit that there are some things that sound good in this budget. For example, I welcome the proposed investments for connectivity. Access to high-quality Internet and cellular service is essential for all Canadians, and investments into rural Canada are key to closing the connectivity divide. However, I am skeptical of this promise because, as of today, no money from the existing universal broadband fund has been announced for Manitoba. Proposals such as the Parkland multi-community broadband project have yet to receive any funding. I would strongly caution Canadians on the promises in this budget. The Liberals are notorious for over-promising and under-delivering, and my constituents know that.

The best way to predict the future is to look into the past. Let us examine the record on a few of the previous promises. The Liberals promised to plant two billion trees. They promised to end the boil water advisories. They promised not to raise the Liberal carbon tax. They promised to be accountable. They promised to balance the budget. Guess what? They failed to deliver all of these promises.

I should remind the House that it was only last year when the government mentioned the importance of the fiscal anchor and fiscal guardrails. Well, Canadians will be shocked to learn that the car has driven off the cliff. The government does not believe in fiscal sustainability. In nearly 750 pages, there is no clear mention of a fiscal anchor.

Canadians of today may not experience the full impact of government debt, but I can assure this House that Canadians of tomorrow will experience not only today's debt but the interest as well. Each Canadian is now responsible for $33,000 in federal debt, and that number is growing. By 2026, interest payments on the federal debt could reach $40 billion a year. By next year, this Prime Minister will be responsible for more debt himself than all of the previous prime ministers combined.

Unfortunately, this budget does not tell Canadians how the government is going to pay for this record amount of debt. I suspect that the explanation of how the Liberals will pay for the new debt will not be shared until after the next election. I am confident that if the current government is re-elected, taxes will go up and promises will be broken as soon as the campaign is over, because history is bound to repeat itself. Canadians will not be tricked. They understand that higher spending today means higher taxes tomorrow; and, when inflation decreases the value of hard-earned savings accounts and higher interest rates prevent home ownership, the last thing Canadians want are higher taxes.

I will conclude with the words of former American president Herbert Hoover, who said, “Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt”. I can assure Canadians that a Conservative government would unleash the economic potential of our nation, stand up for rural Canada, and secure the future for all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is getting really tiring to hear the misrepresentation of a quote by the Minister of Finance. A number of Conservatives have done that throughout just about any debate that relates to the budget since the budget was introduced and they always are very good at cherry-picking half of the sentence that they want to say. This member did it too, when he said that the Minister of Finance said, “I really believe COVID-19 has created a window of political opportunity”.

Of course, the Conservatives stop the quote there because finishing it would just look horrible. If we actually finished the quote, which I would like to do, the Minister of Finance went on to say, “...political opportunity...on the importance of early learning and child care”.

Does this member not feel any kind of remorse for grossly misquoting the Minister of Finance?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this budget really has no focus. What I cannot not get over is the conversation I had with Diane. Thinking back, this was a young female with a family of four worried about how much government debt is being acquired. Those are the things I am focused on. That conversation really set me back. I really do wonder why my colleague across the way would be wondering about how we are misrepresenting something when everybody in Canada except the Government of Canada is worried about how much debt is being acquired.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for his speech.

Bill C-30 increases the envelope for the Canadian Securities Transition Office, which was one of the Harper government's pet projects.

The member spoke at length about SMEs in his speech. In Quebec, SMEs, the financial sector, labour-sponsored funds and political parties are against this bill.

Can the member explain why the parties in power in Ottawa listen to the Bay Street banks more than they do Quebec?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the current government in particular does not want to listen to any of the provinces in Canada. This has been an ongoing battle as we respond to COVID-19.

I totally sympathize with the battle Quebec is going through in dealing with these SMEs.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all I heard in that speech were partisan shots. New Democrats are here right now to help people who are struggling right now, because there are a lot of businesses, like the ones he talked about, that are struggling to get through this third wave of the pandemic, including start-ups that have not been able to get any help so far.

The government has an opportunity to look at new baseline revenues for the wage subsidy or for the commercial rent program. The government could actually help those businesses that have been left out and have not received any supports to date if it amended those programs. It could help businesses like the Wildflower bakery that opened in Port Alberni in my riding, which opened in July but has been waiting for several months to get its business up and running after years of planning.

Does my colleague support calling on the Liberals to take action and help preserve a generation of businesses that need help right now by amending those programs to give them the emergency support they deserve and need?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would support all those businesses. The problem with this budget is it misses so many of those businesses in my riding, those start-ups, and is creating a huge amount of uncertainty for the future. They do not know what kind of future bills are going to come from the government. Can one imagine starting up a business and having a special item line that says if inflation goes up another 1% or interest rates go up one has to allow for that in one's taxes. That is the kind of future the government is creating—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the chamber today to speak to Bill C-30, the Liberals' budget implementation act. It has been more than two years since the government has tabled a budget, and the expectations of Canadians were high. With all the platitudes, like “build back better”, the government had increased expectation and set the stage for something that we were led to believe would be momentous. Unfortunately, the Liberals once again fell back to their default setting of over-promising, overspending and underachieving. Plain and simple, this budget is a letdown for the hard-working Albertans in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe.

It is reasonable that a number of essential COVID-19 support programs that many Canadians rely on are being extended. This is only fair considering they are necessary because of the failings and mismanagement of the pandemic by the Liberals in the first place. However, while Americans are able to attend stadium sport events and mass gatherings because of a successful vaccination and therapeutic drug strategy, Albertans have just been placed under the most stringent public health measures so far. The Liberals' failure to procure an adequate number of vaccines is devastating, not only to those who will undoubtedly get COVID, but to all Canadians who are being forced to sacrifice more for longer than our friends and families in other countries.

The budget completely fails to lay the road map for how the Liberals plan to get out of the pandemic and get back to life as we once knew it. That is job number one right now, and it was missed entirely in this budget. It is clear that the Liberals have no plan to get back to normal. Instead, they came up with creative solutions to try and mask their failure by trying to compare Canada's first-dose vaccination rate, with our four-month gap between doses, with those of our G20 partners, which are following the manufacturers' instructions on timelines for administering the second dose. Maybe that should not be surprising. After all, this is a government that is well practised at spin, starting with its ethically challenged Prime Minister.

The Liberals' failure to prevent variants of concern from entering Canada and their failure in acquiring vaccines are not just health related. The longer it takes for us to begin the post-COVID recovery, the further we will fall behind.

While the Liberals may be spending money like it grows on trees, which is easy to do when one is printing money to offset spending, the reality is that only the private sector can lead us out of the pandemic, and private sector investment is going to flow to the jurisdictions that welcome it. Unfortunately, with so much uncertainty about when we will be on the other side of the pandemic and with a budget that does nothing meaningful to cut red tape or improve the business climate in this country, Canada is not and will not be prepared for the necessary private sector investments.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has made it clear that the government sees the current quagmire of misery that Canadians are living in as a window of political opportunity. This budget shows us exactly what kind of opportunity the Liberals are seeking: an opportunity to shore up their political fortunes for re-election. This budget is full of unnecessary, unproductive spending and electioneering that the government is trying to disguise as stimulus.

The Minister of Finance promised that they would spend up to $100 billion in stimulus, but only if it was necessary. With many economists speaking out and telling us that stimulus spending of that magnitude was not necessary, I was hopeful that the Liberals would pull in the reins on their spending spree. However, when it comes to the government, the devil is always in the details.

We know that the full $100 billion has been allocated even though the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that a significant portion of it is not actually stimulus at all. I guess no one told the Minister of Finance that if she does not need the whole $100 billion in stimulus, she should not spend it, because it is borrowed money. It certainly does not mean the government should spend the rest supporting political or ideological goals instead of economic ones.

The Prime Minister is set to rack up more debt than every prime minister preceding him. The real issue is that the Liberal government does not even seem to see this as a problem. Time after time we see the government brag about the size of the investment instead of the quality of the return on the investment. That is the problem when a government is all talk and no substance. The Liberals value the press releases more than the result reports, and they clearly plan to continue this trend with budget 2021.

The Liberals promised that they were going to build back better. Well, for central Albertans, this is a plan that will ensure that we build back poorer, as sectors of the economy that Albertans rely on have been largely ignored in this budget, if not outright attacked.

Small businesses that are a critical part of our economy and our communities have been let down. While some much-needed pandemic relief programs were extended and loans remain on offer to those able to shoulder even more government-forced debt, the lack of certainty is crippling. Last year, 60,000 small businesses failed and another nearly 200,000 are in danger of closing now. Small businesses in the tourism sector have been especially devastated.

A single mom in my riding who has been a self-employed travel agent for 30 years recently had to go out and start looking for a new career. This is in large part because the government did not ensure any safeguards for small, independent business people when they were dealing with the airlines. Their commissions are now being clawed back by airlines for services rendered months or even years ago.

In 2020, countless community events were cancelled because of COVID-19, events that our communities rely on to bring in tourists. Many of these community events are once again faced with a fast-approaching deadline to decide what 2021 is going to look like for their events and their businesses.

My riding is home to the Ponoka Stampede, Canada's largest seven-day rodeo. Losing an event like the Ponoka Stampede is not just a loss for the competitors or spectators. It is a loss to the community and surrounding areas, which would otherwise benefit from the event. The estimated economic impact for the local area is $150 million every year. That is a lot of money anywhere, but especially in a rural community like Ponoka with a population of just 7,200 people.

We are getting to a point where organizers need to make these tough decisions again, but the government has not given them the certainty they need to make them. We can see how that ripples across the community. Just last year in Red Deer, the Black Knight Inn closed its doors after running successfully for nearly 45 years.

Guides and outfitters are another part of the tourism sector that have been left behind by the government. With many businesses getting 90% or more of their clients from the United States or other foreign countries, times have been tough for the industry, causing spinoff problems related to food security for local communities and wildlife management. These businesses have lost nearly all of their clients and have no way or ability to pivot to clients from the domestic market.

The budget implementation act has no mention of the tourism relief fund committed to in the budget, which many of these businesses could certainly use. We would expect that a fund geared toward helping businesses adapt their services to public health measures and start to recover would be implemented right away. While funding for Destination Canada could have been helpful in promoting our world-class hunting and fishing opportunities to other Canadians, the government quietly stopped letting lodges access the fund for this purpose a number of years ago.

The agriculture sector was also essentially forgotten. Throughout the pandemic, it has become routine for the government to point to the original set of business risk management programs, which were in need of a overhaul long before the pandemic, as somehow now a solution to the problem. The proposal to refund a portion of the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for vital activities like grain drying is a pittance of what farmers pay to run them. Hopefully, we can get this corrected through the private member's bill of my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South, which would remove the carbon tax from a broader list of farm fuels. The Liberals, I might add, recently voted against it at second reading.

When it comes to the oil and gas sector, there was literally no support whatsoever. In fact, we can see the next step shaping up in the Prime Minister's plan to phase out the oil and gas sector entirely, through the proposed changes that ensure several types of fossil fuel powered energy equipment are no longer eligible for accelerated capital cost allowance deductions. In other words, the Liberals are driving away investment.

When it comes to Alberta's energy sector, the budget is also ensuring that the modest money that is being committed for carbon capture is not eligible to companies that perform enhanced oil recovery. During past challenging economic times, Canada's energy sector has been able to be an integral and central part of our recovery.

Instead of working to empower our world-class oil and gas sector, which abides by the strictest environmental standards in the world, the government prefers to increase the pace with which they are mothballing this industry. They work to end the Canadian industry and ironically welcome oil from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, which lack our commitment to environmental standards and human rights.

This budget is extremely frustrating to my constituents. A recent survey in Alberta by ThinkHQ Public Affairs suggested central Albertans are more likely to report a negative financial impact from the pandemic. It is about 57% in the place I call home compared with 46% for the provincial average. With these realities, we would think that if the government is going to spend money to stimulate our economy, it would ensure that industries important to local economies in places like central Alberta are included.

I do not know what would matter to the government. It simply does not seem to care about the needs of central Albertans. I look forward to the day when a Conservative government once again takes care of the needs of all Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, just so the member knows, Destination Canada is now supporting domestic marketing. I am glad he has called for supporting tourism. There is $500 million for a special tourism relief fund, another $700 million for small business financing and another $100 million for Destination Canada so we can get ready to market Canada. I am also glad the member mentioned the carbon tax and that the Conservatives are putting that forward.

The member said there is all sorts of unfortunate, unneeded funding in this budget. Could the member go over the funding that he thinks is not necessary and not needed for supporting businesses and individuals? That would be interesting to hear.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest that Canadians should not believe that the Liberals' expensive ideas in budget 2021 are needed to fix the previous Liberals' bad ideas. What we need is a budget that gets our Canadian economy back on track, gets people back to work and gets us through the pandemic, rather than one that relies on support programs. The best solution for this is a free market economy, with people with real jobs driving our economy forward, not a Liberal government driving us further into debt.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have highlighted, this budget creates two classes of seniors and it denies provinces and territories the health transfers they need to fight the pandemic.

The member spoke of small businesses, and a detail in the budget caught my attention, which is that charitable enterprises will be excluded from the definition of a small business. Does the hon. member not think that this will further weaken small charitable enterprises?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois need to understand that for federal transfers to the provinces to work and pay for the things she is asking for, the Government of Canada needs to grow the Canadian economy. The Alberta economy has contributed disproportionately, in a positive way, to the overall budget and to the the federal government's balancing of the books, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars in the last few decades alone. If the member and her party would just stop attacking the oil and gas sector in western Canada and promote the use of pipelines, there would be enough resources for all of us to share in equitably.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I met with the Canadian Health Coalition, and they had just one question for me: Why do the Liberals and the Conservatives not want to add pharmacare to our national health care system, when over 90% of Canadians want it, it would keep us all healthy and it would save us over $5 billion a year? Why are the Conservatives against it?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know that over 98% of Canadians currently have access to a pharmaceutical plan, either through their employers or through provincial programs offered to seniors and those living with disabilities. If my colleague wants to work constructively on a plan that would help the other 2% of Canadians who do not have access, he would find me to be a willing partner.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for citing two things: one, that we need to have a thriving economy here in Canada; and two, that it should be led by the private sector, because it knows where the opportunities are and how to multiply returns for the benefit of everyone.

Today Suncor and ATCO, in collaboration, announced a new project that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in existing refineries via the production of clean hydrogen. However, the government in its budget has excluded natural gas-based hydrogen projects from the list of zero-emission technologies eligible for tax reductions.

Does the member believe that the government needs to start supporting the private sector in these kinds of things, rather than just applauding, but not really supporting, made-in-Canada technology and solutions?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent question. I would point out to my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola that, in the budget, the Liberal government is supporting carbon capture and sequestration but not carbon capture, utilization and sequestration.

There is a major project in my constituency right now that produces net-zero oil, and it is creating jobs, wealth and economic opportunity here. However, because of this current Liberal government's ideological bent to stop everything that involves the use of oil and gas, the technologies, the innovations, and the expertise in Alberta, western Canada and in any oil-producing provinces will get short shrift from this government. Its ideological bent is to do anything and everything to stop the oil and gas sector.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do you remember learning history in grade school? One of the students would raise her hand and ask why the king did not just create more money if there was not enough, because after all, he was the king and he could increase the amount of money available in order to spend more.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am hearing there is no interpretation.

The interpretation is not working. We will check the French interpretation again.

Everything seems to be working now.

The hon. member for Carleton can continue his speech or he can start over from the beginning.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do you remember grade school history class, when a student would raise her hand and ask why the king did not just create more money if there was not enough? He was the king, after all. Almost all children ask that question at school at some point when they are learning history. Then the teacher has to explain that, if the king creates more money, inflation goes up.

Young students are not the only ones asking that question and thinking about the concept of creating more money to cover government spending. Academics, U.S. members of Congress and even former U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have endorsed a concept called “modern monetary theory”, which states that a government can spend as much as it wants and the central bank can just print more money. If inflation goes up, as the grade school teacher tells the students, all the government has to do to reduce inflation is raise taxes. Ultimately, the people are the ones who have to pay, but in the beginning, everyone thinks it is all free.

This theory is becoming more popular. The current federal government says it is against the theory, but is that really the case? Let us look at the numbers. Last year, the government ran up a $350-billion deficit, of which the Bank of Canada bought $300 billion, or over 75%. The fact is, the Bank of Canada now owns almost one-third of the federal government's debt. The debt that is now in the hands of the Bank of Canada has increased by hundreds of percentage points.

This year, the government announced that it would borrow $3 billion per week. How much will the Bank of Canada provide to the government each week? Also $3 billion. For every dollar the government borrows each week, the Bank of Canada will provide the same amount. This has never happened in the history of the country. Even during wartime, when money was needed to finance armies, money was loaned by citizens. They bought interest-bearing bonds, allowing them to save money while financing the war against the enemy. Now, however, the government has decided to print money.

Is this really a modern concept? If my colleagues think that a concept used over 2,000 years ago is modern, then I guess we can call it modern. Let us recall the dictator Dionysius of Syracuse, who never had enough money because he was always fighting wars and living lavishly. Unable to pay his bills, he collected all the coins on his island, each of which was worth one drachma, the currency of the Greeks at that time. He then stamped each one-drachma coin with the number two. Now he had twice as much money to spend.

It was like magic, except now the public had to pay twice as much for all the goods and services on the island because the money was worth half as much as it was before. The ultrarich, the dictator's entourage, the bankers, the big businessmen and the military leaders were much richer, but the workers had to pay more just to put food on the table and survive.

That is not the only example. In Europe, throughout the great Napoleonic Wars, kings and leaders tried to mint more coins with less silver to fund their wars. During the wars, people noticed that there was less silver in the coins and that the cost of living was going up for ordinary citizens.

In Germany, during the First World War, the government inflated the value of its currency tenfold. After the war, the Germans had to cart around a huge amount of money just to buy a loaf of bread. At the restaurant, they would order 10 or 15 beers at once as soon as they arrived because the price could shoot up hour by hour over the course of the evening. They were better off ordering as soon as they got to the restaurant.

The economist Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on inflation and the creation of money, demonstrated that in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and Brazil, there was a perfect correlation between an increase in the production of money and an increase in prices.

That is the history of the creation of money. When there is too much money chasing too few goods and services, prices go up. Have prices gone up in Canada since the government began paying its bills with printed money?

A Financial Post article states that the central banks and government are out of touch with Main Street when it comes to the rising cost of living. According to the latest Canada's Food Price Report, every year, the cost of meat increases by 5% to 7%, the cost of bread increases by 4% to 6%, and the cost of vegetables increases by 5% to 7%, and gas prices have increased by 78% to $1.18. Yes, prices are going up.

Home prices have also gone up by one-third, or 30%. Young Canadians cannot even dream of owning a house because of the skyrocketing prices. That is good for the wealthy. The ultrawealthy are seeing their assets increase in value, but the working class, the people doing the work, are seeing their wages decrease in real terms. A lot of money is being transferred from workers to the ultrawealthy.

Elected officials never voted for this inflation tax. This tax is worse than all other taxes because it targets the poor, who do not have assets and cannot increase their net worth.

We must control the spending and stop the central banks from printing money so that we can protect the value of our dollar and the value of workers' time. This will give us an economy that compensates people based on merit, on their contributions, not based on the inflation of their assets and cost of living.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people in this debate have been very constructive, coming up with good ideas and good criticism, so I would like to ask the member this.

In a 700-page document with hundreds of items that support businesses and individuals, of all the members in the House, the former finance critic should be able to analyze what he supports and, to be fair, what is good in it. Could the member enumerate some of the positive things in the budget?