Alain Therrien

[Business of Supply, June 21st, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the fine speech by my colleague, who let the cat out of the bag: We will be voting in favour of this motion. The arguments contained in the motion, and I think that he elaborated on them, are obviously not to our liking. However, we agree with the conclusion: that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets”.

When it comes to inflation and interest rates, things can get quite complicated. What better way to simplify issues than with populism and things that seem obvious to everyone, when they are actually not?

Why do we have inflation? Some will say that inflation is caused by government spending. I want to sound a note of caution, however. Inflation happens if the government spends money and if it creates deficits. Some people will therefore be tempted to say that deficits lead to inflation. That is not necessarily true. This is what is known in economics as the crowding-out effect, a term we do not often hear. It means that government deficits might not result in inflation because there is a crowding-out effect, meaning consumers save money to make up for the government deficit. The result is that there is no impact on inflation. The crowding-out effect may mean that there might be an impact on interest rates, however.

Why am I saying this? I am saying it because the thing is not so easy to understand. We could spend a long time discussing economic theories. Furthermore, some theories clash. Keynesianism is different from classical or neo-liberal economics, and so on. We have to be careful to avoid simplistic analyses or we run the risk of ignoring real solutions.

Is government spending to blame for the deficit? Is the Government of Canada responsible for global inflation? Did it ride around on a scooter, waving its arms, saying it was going to send us money and create inflation, before running away like Batman and Robin? The answer is no.

I just spelled it out in simple terms. The government is not to blame. The fault lies with the global pandemic, and with the fact that governments were forced to spend like never before in history. I never saw anything like it before. Governments were spending money hand over fist, like it was going out of style.

That is the reality. Faced with an extraordinary situation, we came up with what we believed were the best solutions at the time. That is why we have inflation. I have the figures. Inflation rose to 6.8% in 2022 and fell to 4.4% in June 2023. We can therefore agree that inflation was mainly caused by a pandemic.

Why is that? It is because we have economists who are monetarists. Monetarists believe that inflation is caused by printing money and that abundance reduces value. The more money is printed, the less that money is worth. This means that the value of money is eroded by inflation. That is the view of monetarists. A lot of people agree with this.

That is why it is the Bank of Canada that finds solutions to Canada's inflation. Our colleague, the leader of the official opposition, believes that it has fangs and prowls around at night, but in reality, the Bank of Canada is one of the most renowned banks in the world. When we travel abroad, for example to universities, we only have to mention the Bank of Canada and the audience applauds for half an hour. It is unbelievable. It is so renowned that the English decided that they wanted the Governor of the Bank of Canada for themselves. It is a little like Bedard in the world of hockey. He was that sought after.

I am just talking, but if members want to read something that is well done, they should read the Bank of Canada Review. It is well done. When they finish their university degree in economics, good economists often end up at the Bank of Canada—except for me, because I escaped. I was in the washroom when the recruiters came by. Some say that they are crazy, but they really do know their stuff. It is a renowned bank.

In 1991, they said that the only way to fight inflation effectively is to tweak interest rates. Starting in 1991, the Bank of Canada was the second bank, after New Zealand, to say that it would adjust interest rates to keep inflation between 1% and 3%. That worked beautifully until the pandemic hit. It was going so well. We were a model for the world. Now, with the increases, what did they do? They were forced to raise interest rates. It is a bit complicated.

When a government adjusts monetary policy and plays with interest rates, it takes 18 months for it to have an impact on the economy and 24 months for it to have an impact on inflation. This requires projecting two years in advance before starting to play with things. That is the reality. It is not easy.

Having said that, we could all go for a beer and tell ourselves that there is no point in us being here because the Bank of Canada manages inflation. Wait a minute. That is not true. There are things that the government can do.

First, the government can introduce well-defined policies. If wages are very high and workers are scarce, then perhaps workers could be found if the government offered tax exemptions to older people who want to go back to work. Is that complicated? A guy with glasses and a computer can do that.

No, the government would rather use the stick. They bleed dry seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 and hope that once they are at the end of their rope, they will surely want to go to work. No, that is not how to create jobs and ensure that these people can go to work.

Let us talk about housing. There is a lack of housing. It is a matter of supply and demand. We need more supply. The government needs to invest in housing. That is the smart way to fight inflation.

As for oil, we have been ripped off by shameless increases in the price of oil. Perhaps it is because we should be doing something other than burning oil. Perhaps we should be investing in the energy transition of oil companies.

With regard to productivity, we have to increase worker productivity without making more widgets. If we make more widgets, then there are more widgets on the market and the value of widgets will drop. This is not complicated.

People are wondering where I stand because I have not talked about it yet. The last part of the motion reads, “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.” I would like to emphasize two things. We need restraint, not austerity. The government must stop wasting, stop encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, stop proposing one-size-fits-all measures, and stop giving money to oil companies because doing so is wrong. It has to get smart about its spending. That does not mean embracing austerity. Most of all, it must not achieve these things on the backs of Quebec and the provinces, or else services to the public will be disrupted. Most public services are delivered by Quebec and the provinces. The government must not try to rebalance its budget by cutting back on health transfers to the provinces like Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did in the past. That must not happen.

There is something called the fiscal imbalance, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the needs are in Quebec City and in the provinces, and that the money is in Ottawa. This means that, even if the government remains virtually static, it will be so drowning in money thanks to the taxes it collects and the fact that it has few areas of responsibility that 40 years from now, in addition to not having a deficit, it will no longer have any debt, and some provinces will not even be solvent. They will be forced to start from scratch under another name. I do not know if they will, but they will no longer be solvent. There is a problem somewhere.

Some think that a plan to return to a balanced budget means austerity measures. That should not be the case. There is no reason why it should be, for the reasons I outlined. This government must become responsible in how it spends money. No one can claim that it is an example. I understand that the country has weathered the COVID‑19 pandemic, but after returning to normal, no one can say that it has been rigorous and intelligent in its spending choices.

I just mentioned some ways in which the government could have done better. Some people spoke earlier about how the government provides its services. Let us just say there is a lot of room for improvement. To impose a plan would make this government more serious, less frivolous and less careless.

The government needs to make do with the amount of money it has available. It must be intelligent. It must not cut transfers to the provinces, because they are the ones who deliver the most important services to the public. It must be preventive with regard to inflation, which is currently eroding the purchasing power of those least well-off. As I said, this government needs to have targeted, intelligent spending to protect people in need. Doubling the GST tax credit was the right thing to do. I applaud that. However, we also need to fight inflation intelligently, not in a populist way.

[Democratic Institutions, June 20th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has taken the high road throughout this debate.

It is a strategy as old as time: lip service to appease the opposition until the end of the session in the hopes that media attention will be elsewhere in the fall. Even worse, he could try to convince his good friends in the NDP to settle for a parliamentary committee over the summer instead of a full-fledged inquiry—a classic move.

This needs an inquiry now, with a chair appointed now and voted on now by the House, not parliamentary “arguing”, not offloading responsibility. It is now that it is happening—

[Democratic Institutions, June 20th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Its plan to avoid an independent public inquiry on Chinese interference at all costs was hardly a resounding success. Its approach, which consisted of appointing a special rapporteur reporting exclusively to the Prime Minister, was an abysmal failure.

Then, all of a sudden, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities showed some openness to a public inquiry, just as the House prepares to rise for the summer. Honestly, some people are starting to wonder whether the House and the media are being taken for a ride. When is the government going to launch the inquiry?

[Democratic Institutions, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, what has the government achieved so far this session? It wasted four months fighting against a commission of inquiry into Chinese interference. That is what people will remember unless the government takes action by Friday.

People are anxious for a commission to finally get to work, and so is the opposition, as I can confirm on good authority. I am also certain that no one is as anxious as this government to move on to the next step.

Why not do so immediately by announcing a public inquiry?

[Democratic Institutions, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the House will be wrapping up for the summer on Friday. There are four sleeps left for the government to announce a commission of inquiry into Chinese interference.

I say this because, with all due respect, the government is sleeping on the job. It needs to wake up and establish an official commission of inquiry. The name of the person who will lead it needs to be submitted to the House for approval. This needs to be announced by Friday if we want this commission to be able to publish its findings before the next election.

The government needs to get to work. Will it immediately announce a public and independent commission of inquiry?

[Jacques Plante, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable resident of my riding, Jacques Plante, who passed away on June 3 at the age of 93.

Mr. Plante first started helping young people as a teacher and school principal. He made a life-changing impression on many of them. Not only did the tireless Mr. Plante work with youth, but he was also involved in helping seniors. He will be remembered for his contributions as president of the La Prairie seniors' club or as the chair of the board of directors at the Kateri CLSC. Nothing stopped this history buff, who became a separatist in the 1970s. At that time, he became actively involved in the Parti Québécois. As a result of his extraordinary political and social engagement, he was named patriot of the year in 2012. Mr. Plante was a kind, generous and charming man. He always had a smile on his face and he was so proud to be a Quebecker. Mr. Plante was an exceptional man who will never be forgotten.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to express my deepest condolences to his family and friends.

[Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the work done by the members for Montcalm, Berthier—Maskinongé and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. They did an extraordinary job on this bill, which is crucial for Quebec.

This legislation affects one of Quebec's largest and most historically significant industries, specifically dairy production. Simply put, it seeks to protect the management of milk and other quotas to ensure that our producers are not negatively affected by political decisions that could threaten their future.

Of course, other countries will want to undermine supply management in order to get their products into our country. It is important to understand that the most protected sector in the world is agriculture. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, was signed in 1947. That agreement disappeared in 1994 to make way for the World Trade Organization, or WTO, precisely because it was getting harder to convince some countries to listen to reason when it came to protecting agriculture. There are reasons for that. The creation of the WTO did nothing to change the fact that virtually all countries want to protect their farmers.

For starters, we have to protect the industry that feeds us. It is vital to the national community that we protect the people who work hard to feed people. The job is not easy, we know. My father-in-law is a farmer. He is an amazing guy who is always working. Farming is his career and his job. This man, for whom I have a great deal of respect, puts food on people's plates. I often tell him that, when he looks out at everything growing in his fields, he can say that he is playing a part in fighting hunger. He is doing something phenomenal, not to mention tangible. The main reason is that we have to protect the people who feed us. It is a no-brainer. I am sure that people who are listening to me agree that these words make sense and that I speak the truth.

Second, farmers have to spend a lot of money to invest in their business. Costs are high. First, they need to buy the land, but then they also need to acquire livestock and the necessary tools. That takes a considerable investment. Investment means profitability. If producers invest in an area like milk production, for example, they have to make sure they get a return on that investment. They have to protect their return. If there is one sector on the planet where there are economic ups and downs, it is in agriculture, in farming livestock and its product, like milk. We need to ensure that the farmers who go to bat to buy equipment and invest in their businesses get a return on that investment.

The best way to ensure a return, and therefore ensure that they can continue their work, is to support supply management. It affords them predictability, which ensures a return on their investment. That is the basis of agricultural investment. That is how we protect farmers. That is how we assure those who invest millions of dollars that they, too, will have enough to eat, that there will be bread on the table. That is how we thank them for what they do. That is the second reason why supply management is important.

Third, we often talk about the regional economy, about how we need to find a way to stimulate the economy in the regions to encourage people to stay there. We want them to stay because they love their region, because they are locals and they want to stay. These people need to be able to stay where they are and where they want to be. If they want to stay in the regions, then we need to make sure that they can work and prosper there.

In a previous life, when I was in Quebec City and I was critic for economic matters, we used to talk about Investissement Québec. People would rack their brains trying to figure out what Investissement Québec's core mission was. It was thought that Investissement Québec's mission was to support the regional economy. That is what came up all the time. We were trying all kinds of ways to make that happen.

We see that supply management is a damned good way to stimulate the regional economy. After all, farms are very often located in the regions. This is an extraordinarily important reason for Quebec, given its vast territory. Gilles Vigneault said that villages were thrown into the regions. This is what was considered a feat for Quebeckers: Even in the toughest areas to succeed, there are people who hang on to their land and want to stay there because they love where they are. Supply management is a way of giving them a pat on the back and telling them to stay there, because they can work and make money right where they are. It is also worth remembering that these people hire workers and that these businesses create jobs.

Quebec is known as a nation of small and medium-sized businesses, or SMEs. We often boast about Quebeckers' innovative spirit and creativity, Quebeckers like Armand Bombardier, who is the perfect example of a tinkerer or a guy who messes around in his garage to come up with new ways of dealing with life on this land and making it easier. Quebeckers are very good at that. They are very good at being resourceful and creating SMEs.

Farms, especially dairy farms, are SMEs. I do not know the exact number, but Quebec has thousands of dairy farms. The advantage of these farms in Quebec compared to what is happening elsewhere in the world is that these dairy farms carry family names. Families own them. What does that mean? That means that they are handed down from father to son, that they are a legacy, that knowledge is passed down from generation to generation. We need to be extremely careful about preserving that, and that is what my colleagues have done. I am very proud of that.

When I go around my riding or elsewhere in Quebec, people ask me if the Bloc Québécois is working on anything special. We immediately tell them that we are working on protecting supply management, among other things. Everyone thanks us for that. They tell us to keep up the good work and not to give up.

I have to commend the other parties for doing their part. I have to say, there is no need to be any more partisan than necessary. If this bill ends up getting passed, it will be thanks to the other parties too, and I thank them for that. I hear them. They seem to be on the same page. That is not always the case, but it needs to be acknowledged when it happens. In closing, I would say this: Long live farmers, long live the producers who feed us. Without them, we would not get far.

[Democratic Institutions, June 14th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, they are still talking about a process. It is not easy to get the facts from the government.

It seems like the government is hemming and hawing over whether to hold a public inquiry on Chinese interference. It must do it, because this is too important. The government has a duty to launch an inquiry before the House adjourns. In order for that to happen, it must do two things. First, it must announce the format of the inquiry, which will be a commission of inquiry. Second, it must ensure that the commissioner is truly independent. No one will accept the job as long as the government keeps hiding its intentions.

Will it launch a commission of inquiry, yes or no?

[Democratic Institutions, June 14th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the government must launch an inquiry into Chinese interference before we rise for the summer. The government appears more open to the idea, but it is not making much headway because it refuses to clarify its intentions. This is because of a word that starts with “p”. Every time we mention an inquiry, the government talks about a public process. I looked everywhere but could not find a definition for “public process”. Potential commissioners probably do not know exactly what it means either. A public inquiry is a clear concept; it is even defined by law.

Why not just announce an independent commission of public inquiry? That is what everyone wants. This is what it comes down to.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's question, even though she is not wearing shoes.

There is nothing written on my jeans, by the way. I like her a lot anyway.

The solution is simple. We need to discuss things and show respect for one another. We need to talk to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. He knows that I am there anytime he wants to talk to me. The Bloc Québécois is constructive. We are ready to be reasonable, to discuss things and to reach agreements.

He sometimes talks about the House leader of the Bloc Québécois in the media, and the first thing he always says is that the House leader of the Bloc Québécois is reasonable. However, he did not even come and see me. He did not even come to see someone he describes as reasonable. He is giving me the silent treatment.

I cannot negotiate with someone who is not talking to me. I am waiting on him and offering to help.