Bill C-30

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1 (Targeted Tax Relief)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act in order to double the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit for six months, effectively increasing the maximum annual GST/HST credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-2023 benefit year.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1 (Targeted Tax Relief)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the first question, I suggest the member sit down and talk with the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister would be more than happy to provide an explanation as to why it might not be able to be done. I do not know the answer.

With regard to Bill C-22, I can assure the member that the minister responsible for the disability legislation is very eager and wants to see the legislation come back. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of House debate time, there is only so much legislation we can bring in. For example, I would have loved to debate that bill today, but the problem is that we have to get Bill C-30 through and Bill C-31.

There are a number of pieces of legislation. If we had more opportunities to bring forward government bills, that would probably be the ideal. For example, Bill C-30 is universally supported by all members of the House from what I can tell. Right after I sit down, we could pass it and go right to the disability bill. I would be in favour of that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see this moment in the House of Commons, where, on this bill, it seems we have the unanimous consent of the House. There is a realization that this is a targeted measure that is going to people who desperately need it.

Before the Liberals pat themselves too hard on the back, I want to remind them that throughout May and June the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, repeatedly called on the government to put this measure into place because families back then needed this measure. Yes, Bill C-30 is welcome, though it is coming a bit late. What changed with the Liberals? Why did they not see this need back in May and June when the New Democrats were first calling for it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the member from the Bloc. Inflation is very real; we know that. Whether it is what has taken place with the war in Europe or the pandemic, we recognize that around the world inflation is happening. Even though Canada is doing exceptionally well. When we compare us to the United States, England and Europe, our inflation rate has been lower, but that does not mean that we ignore it. That is why we have a Prime Minister, members of the Liberal caucus and others who are trying to develop and support ideas that would be targeted to ensure we are helping the people who need the help the most.

In terms of people who are on fixed incomes, a 10% increase, to those who are 75 and over, on OAS is significant. I am talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 would do exactly what it is—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, the member for Abbotsford would not have done that. I agree. Having said that, we can imagine those individuals who did. It is somewhat sad, because many people we represent have confidence in what they are hearing. With a leadership candidate going around saying, “Invest in cryptocurrency”, I suspect many Canadians did just that.

Unfortunately those who followed that advice lost a great deal of money. I think a conservative estimate would be at least 20%, some might even say it is considerably higher than that. My colleague suggests it might be much higher.

The bottom line is that that is the type of economic advice that was being provided, but it does not stop there. Let us remember that the initial response from the Conservative Party to Bill C-30, the bill we are actually debating today, was to not support it. I like to think that the response received by the Conservative Party over a few days ultimately caused them to change their mind, and I am glad they did because it is good legislation.

However, initially they were not going to support it. In part, it was because the Conservative Party feels that everything involving a collection of money from Canadians is called a tax, as a member across the way suggests. It is such a sad statement, and I will give two examples of that shortly. I do believe the Conservatives were shamed into supporting Bill C-30. I would like to see them do the same thing for Bill C-31.

If Conservatives support the children they represent in their constituencies who are under the age of 12 and who do not have dental plans being able to access dental services, they should be supporting Bill C-31, not filibustering. That is how children would receive the dental services they need. Many of those children who do not receive dental services often end up in a hospital situation, getting surgery for things that could have been prevented. That is what Bill C-31 would do, not to mention also supporting renters by giving them payments.

However, the Conservatives do not want to support that. They say it is about taxes, and I said there is a couple of issues I want to raise on that particular front. A number of years ago, when I was in opposition, I used to be fairly disappointed in Stephen Harper not recognizing the importance of CPP. CPP is an investment, not a tax. The Conservatives would argue today, as they did from their seats, that CPP is a tax.

Stephen Harper refused to negotiate with and talk to premiers about increasing CPP contributions. When we took government, we worked with all political parties, and provinces and territories, to get an agreement to increase CPP contributions, what the Conservative Party today calls a “tax”. It really is for individuals who are working today to invest in their retirement, so when they do retire, they will have more disposable income.

Only the Conservative Party of Canada, not Conservatives at the provincial level, just the national Conservative Party, does not believe in the importance of CPP and the importance of ensuring that people have more disposable income when it comes time for retirement.

When it comes to taxes, in the Conservative Party we see a party that is in complete disarray. Do members remember when I spoke about flip-flopping? I have referenced the analogy of pulling in a fish and it ending up on the dock, and we see it flip-flop around. That is what I think about when I think about the price on pollution and the Conservative Party of Canada. Again, it really does stand alone.

Back in 2015 and 2016, governments around the world, with the Paris Accord, came together and said that we need to deal with the environment, and one of the best ways to deal with the environment was to deal with the price on pollution as a policy tool that would have a real impact. At the time when the accord was reached, and the Prime Minister, along with a delegation from different provinces, came back from Paris, there was a great deal of enthusiasm about it. It was only the Conservative Party here in the chamber that was negative toward it.

The Conservatives had had a change in leadership, if members will recall. Shortly after the second change of leadership, the Conservative Party changed its mind, and it was applauded. I believe the record will show I stood up inside the House and complimented the Conservatives for changing their minds on the issue. They, or at least a good number of them, finally recognized that climate change was in fact real and that having a price on pollution was a good thing.

Let us pause to stop and think about that. When we think about that, let us reflect back to a year ago when we were all knocking on doors. It was not that long ago that we were knocking on doors. What was the Conservative Party saying as its members were knocking on doors? The Conservatives were saying that they believed in a price on pollution. The leader at the time insisted that candidates and the Conservative platform would dictate a price on pollution. That has changed once again. There is new leadership and new direction. The climate change deniers are prevailing, and we now have the leader of the official opposition saying, “No, we are going to get rid of the price on pollution”, or the carbon tax, as he refers to it.

Let us remember that the federal carbon tax is only applied Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the federal Conservative Party now going to go into the provinces and say to the other provinces that do not have the national program and that they are going to get rid of any price on pollution? I would be interested in seeing the negotiations that would take place about that. Is the Conservative Party saying only some parts of Canada should have a price on pollution?

This is the reason I look at Bill C-30 as a positive step. It is an encouraging thing to see Conservatives change their minds and support Bill C-30. I applaud that. I would like them to revisit a number of the issues I have pointed out that continue to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. One of the things they can do, and I will conclude my remarks on this, is not only support Bill C-30 but also support Bill C-31. They should do it for the individuals who need that rent subsidy and the children under the age of 12 who need the dental insurance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to major legislation that would provide substantial support to Canadians in every region of our country. It is a good day.

We are ensuring there will be more disposable income for Canadians to assist them in dealing with issues such as inflation by providing additional financial support so they will have a bit more to spend. It is quite encouraging to see the support for passing the legislation.

Let us think about it. For many years, the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, with guidance of the cabinet and members of the Liberal caucus, has talked a great deal about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We are providing the necessary supports to show we can build a healthier, stronger middle class.

Appreciating the importance of Canada's middle class gives us a better sense of our economy. A healthy middle class gives us a healthier economy. There is good reason for that to be taking place. We live in a consumer society where the consumption of products improves the quality of life. It increases the demand for local manufactured products and services, and it creates jobs.

In fact, if we look at the first number of years since we became government, we saw a relatively healthy growing economy. We invested in infrastructure, in tangible ways, for the first time in many years. All of this was in support of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

We invested in individuals who had financial needs that were far greater than other Canadians at the lower end of household income. We did that by enhancing the Canada child care program. We did that by looking at some of the poorest seniors in the country, seniors who were on fixed incomes, and came up with ways we could ensure they would have more money in their pockets, such as substantial increases to GIS. This was for the poorest of our seniors.

Ensuring we have an economy that works for all Canadians is a priority for the government and the Liberal caucus. We take this very seriously. Seven days a week we are focused on ensuring we are there, in a tangible way, for Canadians no matter where they live in our great nation.

We saw that during the pandemic. When the pandemic hit the world, Canada responded. Our response was second to no other. We saw that with tangible results. At the beginning, we had a high sense of co-operation from all political entities, and we see that today with Bill C-30. We see universal support from members in the chamber. That is why the bill will pass.

It is much like what we saw for the first few months of the pandemic, when the government recognized that there would be a cost to the pandemic. We made the decision that it was better for the government to do the borrowing as opposed to seeing the consequences of the government not supporting its citizens and the small businesses.

That is why we invested billions of dollars in supporting Canadians, like what Bill C-30 would do by putting money in the pockets of Canadians.

We invested in programs such as CERB. Over nine million Canadians benefited from that program. With this legislation, we would see over 11 million Canadians and families benefit. We were there to support Canadians.

We supported small businesses. I ask members to imagine if we had not provided the billions of dollars to support small businesses, whether through loans, rent subsidies, or wage subsidy programs, or the billions for average Canadians. It cost a great deal of money, and it meant that we had to borrow.

The Conservatives in recent days have been very critical of the government, talking about the deficit and trying to position themselves as if though they had not supported the government's expenditures during the pandemic. They say that we have the highest deficit of any other government in Canadian history, knowing full well that they voted in favour of the billions of dollars we had to borrow in order to support Canadians during a worldwide pandemic.

Now, postpandemic, even though it is not completely over, they are starting to change their attitude toward the money we had to borrow in order to support small businesses and Canadians during a world pandemic. It speaks to the Conservative policy mentality. We have seen that. We have seen policies from the Conservative Party that I would ultimately argue are to the detriment of Canadians. We see the Conservative Party flip-flopping, which should cause Canadians to be really concerned.

These are not just words I am putting on the record, but facts. Talking about policy, we can remember today's leader of the Conservative Party, less than a year ago, gave economic advice to anyone who would listen and said that cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was the way to fight inflation. That is what he was telling Canadians less than a year ago, as he was criticizing the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

The member for Abbotsford knows this full well. After all, he gave that leadership candidate some sound advice, which was well received, not only by the Liberal caucus, but also on Bay Street and, generally speaking, by anyone who understands the importance and significance of the Bank of Canada and its governor.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), be read the third time and passed.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit).

I do not know, but we may have set a record to pass a bill through committee. To make that achievement possible, I want to thank all members of the finance committee, as well as the clerk, Alexandre Roger; Carine Grand-Jean; legislative clerks Jean-François Pagé and Émilie Thivierge; the analysts; the interpreters; the staff; and all members and parties in this House for their support on Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

All right, members. Let's get started on Bill C-30 and clause-by-clause consideration. We have about 23 minutes or so to get this done, and that takes us to the two hours for today's meeting.

With us, via video conference on the screen, we have Lindsay Gwyer and Pierre Leblanc back, if any questions need to be asked of the ministry, and we have our legislative clerk here to answer any other questions that may be asked about the legislation. However, it sounds as though we have a lot of support here for Bill C-30.

I do see a hand up. Go ahead, MP Albas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, MP Julian.

We want to thank the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and we want to thank Monsieur Jacques and Monsieur Ammar for coming before us and answering so many questions, not just on Bill C-30, but on a number of pieces of legislation, as we've done here today. Thank you very much.

Members, we are going to suspend and then move into our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-30.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Bill C‑31 will be considered by our committee, but our colleagues will certainly be able to ask you questions as we study this bill.

In the past year, the Canadian economy, like that of most countries, has experienced an inflationary crisis in which prices have risen more than usual. Indeed, Bill C‑30 is intended to be a partial solution to this inflation.

Has your office estimated the additional government revenue generated by this higher than usual inflation? If you have such data, I would like you to share it with us, either verbally now or in writing later. Because it is always interesting to be able to put into perspective the measures that the government has put in place in response to high inflation and the revenue that it is generating.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I too would like to welcome our colleague Mr. MacDonald, who has just returned from his constituency. We all grieve for the people of Prince Edward Island, the other maritime provinces and eastern Quebec. Our hearts go out to them. I am pleased to be able to greet my colleague.

Mr. Jacques and Mr. Ammar, thank you for being here. As I say to your boss every time he comes to the committee, I take my hat off to you and thank you for the important work you do. It is so important to be able to rely on such rigorous and objective analyses as yours. So I say well done and thank you, and wish you well in the future.

I read with interest your report on the impact of Bill C‑30. It is very well done and, to me, everything is clear.

You said you are currently working on an analysis of Bill C‑31. I would like to share my concerns with you about this bill to see if you can take them into account in your analysis. I am concerned: I wonder if the people of Quebec will be assured of receiving their fair share.

Bill C‑31 has two parts, one of which concerns rental assistance. This assistance is provided through the one-time supplement to the Canada Housing Benefit. People in Quebec do not receive this benefit. We have our own program under the right to opt out with compensation. Can we assume that people in Quebec would have to apply for a cheque only once? Will they apply in large numbers, when they are often people who have less income and are less adept at all the forms like this? In other words, can people in Quebec expect to get their fair share? Indeed, as currently drafted, Bill C‑31 does not include any provision mentioning that the system is different in Quebec.

The other part of the bill deals with the issue of dental care. Bill C‑31 provides assistance in this regard that applies to children 11 and under, whereas in Quebec, dental care is covered for children 9 and under. When officials were asked about the application of this program to Quebeckers, they said that if no money was paid out, Quebeckers would not receive a cheque; if money was paid out for care not covered by the dental plan, they would receive a cheque, as is the case in the other provinces. Again, the programs aren't tied in, so can we expect people in Quebec to get their fair share?

I don't know if you have any comments on this or if you'd rather take notes, but for now, I'm listening.

[Nesreddine Ammar]

Actually, I may have some additional information related to that.

I have conducted a kind of distribution analysis to see the effect of Bill C-30 on household incomes. What I have seen is that 20% of the households with the lowest income will see an increase in their disposable income of 1.1%. Of course, they will see the highest increase in comparison with other household income groups. That's one fact that I have observed, and I can tell you that with confidence.

[Jason Jacques]

Again, with respect to Bill C-30, we have not looked at its precise impact in terms of the extent to which it's going to alleviate the impact on households and their budgets at this point, nor have we looked at any interaction effect with respect to provincial governments.

Nasreddine, do you have any additional details with respect to the relative household impacts of Bill C-30?

[Jason Jacques]

Internally we measure it as part of our macroeconomic modelling. We have a macroeconomic model with close to 400 equations. When you drop $2.6 billion into the Canadian economy, which is several trillion dollars, we're able to come up with point estimates or estimates of the inflationary impact. Needless to say, given the sums of money involved, the size of the economy and the size of how much we're actually looking at spending incrementally in Bill C-30, the impact is relatively small—well, it's small for the federal government, but, going back to a point that was made earlier, it's potentially quite substantial with respect to the impact on households and the targeted households.

[Jason Jacques]

Sure.

We produce a report every year that analyzes the fiscal sustainability of the federal government and also looks at subnational governments—so, generally speaking, provinces and territories as well. The last time we produced that report, the federal government was deemed to be sustainable over a 75-year period, so it had additional fiscal flexibility to actually undertake additional spending. The $2.6 billion countenanced in Bill C-30 would fall well within that range.