Debates of Feb. 14th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Rising Inflation and Cost of Living

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for two things in particular. The first is for acknowledging the fact that Conservatives voted in favour of a lot of that spending. The second is for not invoking The Notorious B.I.G. in the House, like the member for Calgary Forest Lawn did. That reminds me of the time that Paul Ryan, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, tried to suggest that he listened to Rage Against the Machine because it was a really cool band, and he did not fully realize the irony that he was the machine.

Is it the belief, based on the rhetoric that we hear from Conservatives, that inflation is 100% a domestic issue? Can the member comment on whether Conservatives believe that other elements, like the war in Ukraine and other things that are going on globally, can contribute to the inflation Canadians are seeing? If they do not believe it as much as we do, then do they believe it at least to some degree, or are they just hell-bent on the idea it is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will resist the temptation to quote Nickelback, but if the hon. member listened to the speech, I had recognized that there are two causes of inflation. One is demand and the other is supply, both of them cause inflation in this country. More recently, economists, former Liberals and Bank of Canada governors are suggesting that the causes of inflation are more domestic than they are international. That means the things that happen here at home are causing inflation.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues and, once again, they are pointing out something that everyone already agrees is a problem. Inflation is causing a lot of problems for people in terms of the cost of groceries, mortgages and housing.

Moving beyond all of the problems that the Conservatives raised, if they were in power and had to present a budget tomorrow morning, what solution would they propose to deal with these problems?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, if Conservatives were in power, one of the things we have consistently said we would do is to reduce energy bills by cutting the carbon tax, or we could take the suggestion of the NDP and reduce the GST on energy bills. However, we would also reduce government spending.

We are spending $15 billion a year, every year, on high-priced consultants to do things that the civil service could do. There are many ways that we could reduce the size of government and free up some money to spend on the things that everybody cares about, such as social security, supports to help the most vulnerable and, of course, health care.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member for Simcoe North said that he was looking for an invisible money tree. I suggest that he look at Shell, which showed $40 billion in profit in 2022. Does he agree that there needs to be a windfall tax on corporations like these, as well as the removal of the GST on home heating?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will consider any recommendation that sees the energy bills of Canadians reduced.

In addition, if the member wants to talk about profiteering corporations, I am not sure how a windfall tax is going to lower inflation for Canadians. However, I do support reviews by the Competition Tribunal and other independent officers as to whether there is unnecessary profiteering or price gouging going on. These are officers and agents of the country. We should be listening to them and taking their advice. There is a grocery study happening at committee. The Competition Tribunal is also looking at the grocery study. If we want to do more of that, I would be open to that as well.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke.

I am actually rather delighted to take part in today's debate on the economy. In examining the Conservatives' motion, I suspect that I am not the only person to note the unbridled enthusiasm with which the Canadian economy is being bashed.

Indeed, the Conservatives' motion makes it sound like Canada is causing all the problems around the world, while that is obviously not the case. I am delighted to have this opportunity today to disabuse the Conservatives of this notion.

The Conservatives seem unaware that we experienced a once-in-a-generation pandemic and that such an event would inevitably have significant and widespread adverse impacts around the world, impacts from which Canada was not and is not immune. The pandemic necessitated a shutdown and a restart of our economy, not just here but in countries right around the world.

Vladimir Putin then illegally invaded Ukraine, sending shockwaves through global energy and commodity markets, with predictable and compounding adverse impacts on economies around the globe.

Analysts have clearly indicated that the ensuing global inflation was not the result of decisions made by one government. On the contrary, global inflation is due to the combined aftershocks of two and a half years of historic turmoil. These global historic events cannot be dismissed or ignored.

Unlike the Conservatives, our government did not ignore them. We faced them head on, and we gave Canadians the assistance they needed to overcome them. As a result, Canada is doing better than most of the other G7 countries during this extremely difficult period.

I would like to point out that inflation eased throughout the last several months, notably in December. In total, I believe it is down 22% since its peak. I also do not want to minimize or dismiss the fact that the cost of living has gone up, which it has, and that inflation does remain higher than normal. The cost of goods has risen, but it has risen all over the world, and every indication is that it is better to be living here in Canada during this time of global economic instability than just about anywhere else in the world. Inflation is lower here in Canada than it is in the United States. It is lower here in Canada than in the average of the European Union as well.

There is every indication that the current challenges flowing from the pandemic supply chain disruptions and from Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine are receding. The Bank of Canada and private sector economists expect inflation to ease towards the 2% target over the next two years.

Moreover, as a result of the targeted investments we have made as a government in order to support Canadians and our economy through these difficult times, Canada has experienced a strong rebound from the pandemic recession, with our 3% growth so far in 2022 being the strongest among G7 countries.

With close to 150,000 jobs created in January alone, our 5% unemployment rate is now close to historical lows. In fact, my friend, the hon. member for Simcoe North just said in the House that unemployment is at an exceptional low here in Canada. At the same time, the labour force participation rate rose once again to over 65%, and we are seeing labour force participation hit record highs across the board, but in particular for women aged 25-55.

Canada also saw the largest increase in real disposable income in the G7, and that should not be downplayed. Outperforming our peers in times of global challenges is a sign of strength, not weakness.

That is not to say that we are not still facing challenges, which is why the rising cost of living is at the heart of our government's concerns. There is no doubt that we see this as the number one economic challenge facing our country at this time.

That is why we introduced our affordability plan to support Canadians who are having a rough time making ends meet. It is already making life more affordable for millions of Canadians. Under our affordability plan, we have doubled the GST tax credit, which is providing targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families, including more than half of Canadian seniors. Many received that additional payment just recently, in November.

We have enhanced the Canada workers benefit to put up to an additional $2,400 into the pockets of low- and modest-income families starting this year. We set out a plan to further improve the workers benefit so that it reaches up to 1.2 million additional hard-working Canadians. This means, in total, the workers benefit will top up the income of up to 4.2 million of the lowest-paid Canadians, because no one who works a 40-hour week should have to worry about paying the bills or putting food on the table.

As part of our affordability plan, we also introduced a permanent 10% increase in old age security for those over the age of 75. That began in July.

This year we will provide a one-time payment to 1.8 million low-income Canadian renters who are struggling with housing costs. We have also reduced child care costs. The majority of provinces and territories managed to reduce fees by at least 50%, on average, by December 2022 as a result of agreements we have reached with our partners. We are building a dental care plan for Canadians, starting with hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 12.

In addition, indexing benefits to inflation means that key benefits that Canadians rely on, such as the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, increase with inflation.

These supports are targeted, and they reflect the actions of a responsible government. We have the lowest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among all G7 countries, and we have ensured those fiscal metrics while we were supporting Canadians who needed it.

Allow me to conclude on that note. Our approach is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion, and it is working. We are outperforming our global peers in the face of this shared challenge of the global economic instability we are all facing. We are supporting Canadians through those challenges while being fiscally responsible.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Trudeau legacy of the 1970s and 1980s was a disastrous inflation crisis, energy crisis and fiscal crisis that was terrible for Canadians at the time over those 15 years when that government ran deficits in 14 out of 15 years. A generation later, it led to $35 billion in cuts to transfers for health care, social services and education under the Chrétien and Martin Liberal governments. It was $35 billion in cuts because of the disastrous Trudeau economic policies of the 1970s and 1980s.

Is the member concerned today that, at a starting point, the $4.5-billion broken promise on a Canada mental health transfer, a promise her own party made in the last election and cannot afford to keep, is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of things that will have to be cut for Canadians because of the disastrous economic policies of her government?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, if we are talking about cuts to programs and services that are essential for Canadians, we need only look at the years of the Harper government. The Harper government actually cut health transfers to provinces. It is our government that is attempting to fix the health care system in this country.

I was personally both surprised and glad to hear that the leader of the Conservative Party would support and maintain the transfers that the Prime Minister announced just last week following a meeting with premiers from across the country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe it is against the rules of the House to mislead the House. The Harper government did not cut transfers. It raised transfers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for her speech.

She spent quite a bit of time on the preamble of the motion. I will focus on the motion itself, specifically the part that says, “fire...consultants”.

I must admit that I completely agree with that part of the motion. When consultants such as McKinsey are used, government policy is being subcontracted out, and that is unacceptable. When contracts are awarded to external consultants, we end up paying double. What is more, multinational consulting firms operate on the periphery of democracy, and using their services undermines democracy.

If the Conservatives had put a period after “fire...consultants”, we would be voting in favour of the motion. Would the Liberal Party also be voting in favour of the motion?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc Québécois is talking about consultants. The use of consultants is necessary in order to provide Canadians with services that meet their expectations. I do not understand why the Bloc is criticizing the federal government's use of consultants when the Government of Quebec, the government of Mr. Legault, uses the same consultants to provide services to Quebeckers. The Bloc does not seem to have a problem with that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I want to ask a question about this statement. The Conservatives have quoted Tiff Macklem saying, “inflation in Canada increasingly reflects what's happening in Canada”. To me that shows that Loblaws, which had a 38% increase in its third-quarter profits in 2022, is not being taxed enough.

Does the member agree that there needs to be a windfall profit tax on corporations like Loblaws?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point the member opposite to the taxes that we have introduced on large corporations, including large banks and large insurance companies. We agree that everybody needs to pay their fair share.

With respect to her specific question regarding Loblaws and perhaps other grocery store chains, I am very encouraged by the fact that our minister of innovation has demanded that the Competition Bureau review grocery store chains in order to ensure that the prices are fair for Canadians. I look forward to its report, which should be coming out in the next few months.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to this opposition motion on the economy. Since we are still relatively early in the year, I think it is worth noting the strong rebound of the Canadian economy from the pandemic recession.

Early data shows that the Canadian economy grew by 3% so far in 2022, the strongest performance in the G7. The unemployment rate is at 5%, close to historical lows. Labour force participation for working-age Canadians is at record highs, 80.3% among Canadians between the ages of 15 and 64, and 85.6% among women aged 25 to 64. Both figures are higher than in the United States.

I am quite disappointed the member opposite did not mention this in his motion.

Not only is the economic recovery well on track, but the inflation data is also encouraging. The consumer price index rose by 6.3% in December 2022 compared to the same period the previous year. Everyone realizes that it is still high, but when we consider that inflation was at 8.1% in June, it is clear that there has been some progress.

That being said, we are well aware that many Canadians are still struggling with the rising cost of groceries and gas. That is why we are supporting those Canadians who are most affected by these price increases.

The Canada workers benefit is a particularly effective measure.

The Canada workers benefit is designed to reduce barriers to employment for low- and modest-income workers by giving them a sizable tax refund. It tops up their income. We introduced it in budget 2018, before the pandemic and the recently elevated global inflation, to encourage more people to join the workforce and stay in it. Right from the start, it put more money in the pockets of more people than did the old working income tax benefit it replaced. The program has proven its worth, and with the pandemic and the rising cost of living, we knew we had to make it even better. Low-wage workers were among the hardest hit during the pandemic, and they are still the most affected by the rising prices at the counter.

First, we expanded and enhanced the benefit so it could reach three million Canadians: hard-working people who do important jobs, but unfortunately, do not get paid very much. Then, in last year's fall economic statement, we further improved it. We expanded the program to reach up to 1.2 million additional Canadians through advance payments. This was an intentional policy choice to top up the incomes of up to 4.2 million of the lowest-paid Canadians. No one who works 40 hours a week should have to worry about paying the bills.

The Canada workers benefit can mean up to $1,400 for a single worker and up to $2,400 for a working couple every year. It also includes an additional $740 disability supplement to give greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce. People living alone and earning up to $33,000 per year receive the Canada workers benefit. Those earning $23,495 or less may receive the full amount. The benefit is also available to families earning $43,212 or less per year. They may receive the full amount if their adjusted family net income is $26,805 or less. The Canada Revenue Agency automatically determines whether people are eligible for the benefit. All eligible workers receive the CWB when they file their tax returns.

We have also taken into account the fact that targeted benefits based on household income may discourage the secondary earner in a household from returning to work. Most of the time, that earner is a woman. The first $14,336 that the secondary earner contributes to the household does not affect their family's eligibility for the Canada workers benefit. This enables skilled female workers to enter and remain in the labour force. It also makes life more affordable for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Canadian families.

Our affordability plan put a suite of measures in place to help Canadians who need it most. In addition to the Canada workers benefit I just talked about, we doubled the GST tax credit for six months. This is extra help for about 11 million people and families in Canada. With the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit, we gave $500 to nearly two million low-income Canadian renters who have a hard time paying their rent.

We permanently increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. More than 3 million seniors are benefiting from that. That means an additional $800 in the first year for seniors receiving the full pension. We worked with the provinces and territories to reduce child care costs by 50%. This is saving families, on average, up to $6,000 per child per year. For Quebec, which already has its own child care system, the government's plan will help create roughly 37,000 new spaces.

We introduced the Canada dental benefit for families with annual incomes under $90,000. This benefit will provide up to $1,300 per child under the age of 12 over the next two years to help pay for dental visits. We are continuing to index benefits for Canadians, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

We are also helping Canadians fight climate change. In the provinces where the federal system applies, individuals and families receive climate action incentive payments. This fiscal year, a family of four will receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. Most families, eight out of 10, receive more than the cost they face from the price on pollution. Low- and middle-income families benefit the most.

Our support programs help those most affected by inflation. We cannot help everyone; that would be fiscally irresponsible. Our ability to spend is not infinite. It is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. We need to help those who need it most, but we also need to ensure that government spending does not make it more difficult for the Bank of Canada to return inflation to its target.

We will continue to put Canada on the road to success. We will ensure that the most vulnerable get the support they need; we will also keep our finances on a sustainable track in the long term.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member mostly talked about low unemployment and 3% GDP growth, basically suggesting Canadians have never had it so good. However, when the Canadians who are watching these proceedings today go to the grocery store, they know that those prices are not going down. If anything, they are still going up, and the problem with inflation is that once those inflationary prices are baked in, they are there to stay. Canadians know that this is going to be a serious, ongoing problem.

The member did mention spending, very briefly, at the end. Given the fact that former Liberal colleagues, finance ministers and governors of the Bank of Canada have said that Liberal government spending is a major contributor to inflation in Canada, how is her government going to actually control spending going forward so we do not have those inflationary pressures anymore?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, what I said was that we are there for people having a hard time making ends meet, and we are doing so in a fiscally responsible way.

We know that inflation is improving; the inflation rate is decreasing and, hopefully, will continue to decrease in the coming months. Nevertheless, these are difficult times for many Canadians. That is why we put in place the various measures I spoke about, in particular the doubling of the GST credit, the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit and the Canada workers benefit.

We are stepping up for those most in need.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are many things we have often heard about in the House, and I would remind members that simply repeating something without adding anything new is just tedious.

That said, earlier, we heard that the government needed the services of consultants to provide expertise, which is a good idea. However, we should not forget that when the public service is depleted of its expertise, there is unfortunately no choice but to hire highly paid people to replace what was already working.

I would like my colleague to tell me if she agrees with the fact that, over the years, the government got rid of its expertise, which made it possible to hire McKinsey.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, we actually contract professional services to complement the work of the public service, which must respond to the various demands and unexpected fluctuations. This is all being studied in committee right now, and I am confident that the committee will come up with the best solution.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, something just does not make sense to me here. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if the government extended the temporary Canada recovery benefit to the big box stores and to the oil and gas sector, it would generate $4.3 billion in revenue. Therefore, I really do not understand why the government did not do that. Why is it protecting the interests of a dozen CEOs in this country and leaving millions of Canadians struggling to get a meal on the table?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, our priority is to really be there and work for Canadians and families who need it most.

That is why we have introduced concrete measures that put more money in the pockets of those who are struggling to make ends meet. We know that these are difficult times. I see the price increases myself when I go grocery shopping. That is the point of our measures. They really are helping Canadians.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their unwavering support. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

As usual, our esteemed Conservative colleagues have decided to repeat their usual mantra, which is to repeat, repeat, repeat something over and over in the hope that voters will come to believe it.

First of all, if the Conservatives want to talk numbers, they should start by double-checking theirs. Let us be clear: The seven years, three months and nine days that this Liberal government has been in power should not be rounded up to eight years, as the Conservatives repeat seven times in their motion, but down to seven. They need to remember the importance of accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.

The teacher in me would say that, simply put, the motion does contain some truthful statements about the state of the economy, but the Conservatives' proposals are pretty shaky and they would fail economics 101.

Let us take a look at their motion from the beginning. The Prime Minister has many faults, as the majority of the House would agree, but he is not responsible for the entire economic situation. He is not that competent.

Today's motion addresses an important issue, which is that the difficult economic context and inflation are real problems that are making life difficult for many Quebeckers and Canadians. It is true that groceries are more expensive, mortgage costs make home ownership far too expensive in some cases, and rents and gas prices have also risen.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that these are critical issues. However, eliminating taxes is not going to solve inflation.

Let us consider the causes of inflation. Supply chain issues arose during the pandemic, Russia invaded Ukraine, and the pandemic was followed by rapid economic recovery and overheating. The labour shortage also contributed to inflation. A lot of different factors are involved. There was also a return to interventionist policies around the globe, in places like Europe, the United States and Canada, to fuel the economic recovery that everyone in the House is hoping to see.

Do the Conservatives think that taxes cause inflation? Just look at our neighbours to the south. They have far fewer taxes, yet they are still experiencing inflation.

As I have explained to the House before, the conduct of budgetary policy consists mainly of choosing the right level of taxes for the right level of spending, while ensuring quality public services. I think we can all agree that that is not really happening right now.

This is a detailed exercise that requires nuance. Unfortunately, nuance is in short supply around here. One of the most important aspects of good government is the sound, intelligent management of taxes.

Contrary to what is proposed here, drastic tax cuts do not constitute a reasonable and effective budgetary policy. However, reckless spending is no better. The government needs to play an important role in the economy.

Let us remember that a government's main tool is its ability to collect and distribute funds. When we take away the government's ability to collect funds, we directly limit its ability to invest in the economy.

Let us take a look at the solutions proposed in the Conservatives\ motion. First, they suggest firing “high-priced consultants”. If they had stopped there, we probably would have been in agreement. It is true that the Quebec government hires consultants, but never to the extent that the federal government has done it in recent years. There is not just McKinsey, but also IBM, PwC and Deloitte. Many companies are being paid exorbitant amounts by the federal government, for no discernible reason. Their services are not superior. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Second, the Conservative motion proposes cutting waste and capping spending. As I mentioned, a good government knows how to levy taxes and how to spend them effectively. We can agree that some taxes are necessary for sound economic management. A good government knows how to do both. That is not the case here. I could give plenty of examples of exorbitant and useless spending items that could be cut, but spending does not play a role in the inflation we are facing today.

Now let us look at the final section, where the Conservatives suggesting eliminating inflationary deficits and taxes. If we read between the lines, this proposal is really about eliminating the carbon tax. The Conservatives have been repeating this message in the House for months now, and it is wrong.

Let me take a moment to talk about what a carbon tax is.

It is an example of an effective tax. Remember that, by 2014, Quebec already had a cap-and-trade system, but it was forced to partner with California because there was no interest in Canada, except for the Ontario government, which later changed its mind. That is what happened. We had to partner with California to implement a proper system that works. We have the figures to prove that the system works.

Quebec has already shouldered its responsibilities when it comes to fighting climate change. I will give a small but important example to demonstrate how well these measures are working. By 2015, Quebec had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. Putting a price on GHG emissions works.

If the Conservatives agree that we need to fight climate change, and I am really eager to hear one of them say so, they need to propose solutions. A carbon tax, like a cap-and-trade system, is a solution that works, because it also follows the rules of the market. They should be happy about that, but they are not. Why not? It is because the oil lobby is too important to the Conservative Party.

Remember, too, that the cost of climate change is higher than the cost of taking action to fight climate change. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Let us talk about the high costs of climate change.

First, there are the health costs. Scientists all agree that the increasingly frequent heat waves will mostly affect the most vulnerable, such as seniors and newborns. People will die. People are already dying, but it will happen more and more. Second, there are zoonotic diseases. As temperatures rise, vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus are moving north and spreading throughout southern Canada and Quebec. These diseases cost society money. Lastly, even allergies have costs in terms of productivity and have an impact on the economy.

In terms of infrastructure, more and more floods are happening, including flash floods and ice-jam flooding. There are enormous costs associated with these types of floods, and they are becoming more frequent as a result of climate change.

There is also the matter of permafrost. Reserves in northern Canada and Quebec are being forced to rebuild their infrastructure. The loss of permafrost, which is melting as a result of climate change, is jeopardizing their infrastructure. Entire cities and villages have to be rebuilt. Another way climate change is affecting infrastructure is through erosion. Along the shores of the St. Lawrence and other rivers in Quebec and Canada, roads and villages need to be moved, because erosion due to climate change has a tremendous impact on the economy.

Now that I have demonstrated that the costs are high, we may be able to finally agree on the fact that levying a simple tax on greenhouse gas emissions makes a little sense. The cost-benefit analysis is simple. Why does the Conservative Party insist on denying the facts?

If they want solutions for curbing inflation and cutting wasteful public spending, that is great. We can start by reforming the competitive system. The federal government has an annoying habit of encouraging monopolies. Several companies in Canada, especially in the transportation and telecommunications sectors, have few competitors, and their fees are among the highest in the world. If we want to give consumers a break, we could perhaps start by lowering prices, which are currently far too high.

What will we say to major companies like Rogers and Shaw, which are awaiting a final decision from the government? “Yes, prices will go up, but that is not a problem. Let us avoid reforming the competitive system at all costs because that would make lobbyists unhappy.”

Essentially, we have a totally obsolete competitive system. How come ministers have the power to decide whether companies can sign agreements that conflict with the Competition Bureau's rulings? It makes no sense. Instead of stirring up anger, which is not helpful, let us stop and propose practical solutions, as the Bloc Québécois is used to doing.