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

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to share my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, to address inflation, Bill C-30 proposes an additional GST rebate for the less fortunate. It is a good measure. We have been asking for this for quite some time, and we will be voting for it. It is good, but it is long overdue.

This measure was announced at the same time as the measures introduced in Bill C-31, namely rent relief and dental insurance. We support those measures in principle as well, but I feel the need to scold the government here. Bill C‑31 is really poorly constructed. It is sloppy. It is embarrassing that Parliament is considering something so poorly drafted, and I am choosing my words carefully.

With respect to rent relief, we are concerned that Quebeckers will not get their fair share because it is a supplement to the Canada housing benefit, which no one in Quebec receives. Quebec has had its own program since 1997, so we have the right to opt out with compensation. Our program is more generous, but the eligibility requirements are completely different. However, Bill C‑31 makes no mention of it. Once again, the government has forgotten that Quebec exists. There is no talk of aligning the two. It is embarrassing. It is as though the bill was written on the back of a napkin.

The same is true of the so-called dental insurance. If the parents pay any fees for a child who is 11 or under, then Ottawa will send them a big cheque. The programs are not properly aligned. What is worse, in Quebec, dental care is covered for children under the age of 10. People in Quebec are already paying for insurance. Once again, the government did not harmonize the programs, except to say that, if the services are covered by Quebec, then Ottawa will not pay and will not compensate Quebec for the cost of its insurance. However, if the parents pay for a service that is not covered, then they are entitled to a big cheque, even if Quebec is already covering most of the costs.

How much is Quebec being penalized? The government is not saying. This is sloppy work. The bill is badly written. It seems as though the department did not even calculate the cost of all this. All it did was reuse, dollar for dollar, the numbers that the Parliamentary Budget Officer came up with and the work that he did when he costed the NDP's proposal.

Once again, this shameful government forgot that Quebec exists. Once again, there is no alignment. This bill could be called “how to turn good principles into bad legislation” or “Quebec does not exist”. I say to the government, way to go. To add insult to injury, this government chose to brief journalists on this bill long before it briefed parliamentarians. This government is showing a serious lack of respect for the House.

I now want to talk a little about inflation. There are some well-known factors driving the surge in prices, such as changes in demand during and after the pandemic; supply chain problems and bottlenecks in response to fluctuating demand and health measures; China's COVID-zero policy, which is drastically disrupting supply lines and is a good example of the health measures I mentioned; the terrible war in Ukraine, which we all hope will come to an end soon; the radical transformation of the labour market and what is being referred to in the U.S. as the great resignation; the ongoing housing shortage; and natural disasters associated with climate change that are also having an impact on the global economy.

All of these factors have significantly affected the economy both here and abroad, and prices have skyrocketed. In a number of sectors, economic abundance has given way to Soviet-style scarcity.

We hope to be able to return to some semblance of normalcy, especially if we get serious about tackling climate change. In the meantime, however, families, people, businesses and farmers are bearing the brunt of this overall imbalance. The world is struggling, and there is no easy solution.

What can be done?

In the short term, we must support the most vulnerable with measures such as those set out in Bill C‑30. We should also support the hardest-hit sectors to ensure that they get through this imbalance. I am thinking of our farmers, for example. In the longer term, we must help make our economies more resilient. With oil and gas prices rising, we must support the development of the green economy.

Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the type of imbalance we are currently experiencing. Keynes proposed effective tools to deal with crises in demand, but not crises in supply.

In light of this imbalance caused by multiple factors, how long will inflation last? It is difficult to say. The central bank has chosen to get out the heavy artillery to fight inflation. It wants to clamp down on inflation expectations. Here is its reasoning. Once expectations of higher inflation become entrenched in the economy, everyone tries to raise their prices to compensate. That creates a snowball effect. In other words, inflation expectations cause inflation.

It is easy to fall into this vicious cycle. The Bank of Canada, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Fed, wants to minimize that risk, even if it means seriously slowing the economy or even helping trigger a recession. Central banks believe that it will then be easier to stimulate the economy to support growth as needed. They are still traumatized by the inflationary episodes of the 1970s and 1980s.

Inflation is still high, but there are signs it is stabilizing. We appear to be emerging from this period of overall imbalance, at least in some sectors, but not because of monetary policy, which is slow to bring about change.

Is the central bank's policy too aggressive? Possibly.

Some economists suggest waiting a little longer to see how the economy will respond to this interest rate hike. Nobody can say for sure where lies the sweet spot between fighting inflation and avoiding recession. The Bank of Canada, again inspired by the Fed, apparently prefers to fight inflation. Over the next few months, we will see if it made the right choice. Meanwhile, economic conditions remain uncertain.

This is a difficult situation for many people, as I said. It is important to adopt policies aimed at those who are struggling the most and to implement them in the context of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. We also need to promote structural measures, including supports for social housing and measures to address the labour shortage. On that point, I do not understand why the government still has not introduced any tax breaks to lure retirees back to work.

I want to talk briefly about the situation in developing countries. It is downright catastrophic, and Canada and other rich countries must do a better job of supporting them. On top of food shortages, developing countries face high levels of public debt, as international institutions encouraged them to take on debt during the pandemic. Most of their imports and loans are in U.S. dollars. However, in the context of global uncertainty, the value of the greenback has soared, serving as a hedge and reducing the purchasing power of these countries. The energy crisis is also taking a toll. Lastly, China is drawing back from doing business with developing countries due to its own economic difficulties.

That is why wealthy countries need to come together quickly to support these countries in order to avoid a cascading series of crises in these emerging economies. Everyone will be affected. We have to prevent that from happening.

Let us also invest in the green transition. We are facing a serious crisis, and we need to act urgently.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was refreshing to hear a detailed economic presentation from the hon. colleague across the way, and one that is not putting forth simple answers.

The hon. member mentioned the targeted programs trying to do one-time transfers to people who are getting hurt the worst in a way that will not stimulate inflation, and that balance is very difficult for us to make and for the Bank of Canada to make in conjunction with us. The constrained supply cycle that we are in right now is one that is unusual for us to deal with.

Could the hon. member comment on how we need to be nimble in the months ahead, knowing that we could be facing higher unemployment and we could also be facing other challenges on the road ahead?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Guelph for his comments and his question. I quite agree with the issues he raised.

The global economic outlook is uncertain, especially considering the central banks' fight against inflation and the entire context that I referred to. Most economists expect there will be a recession in Europe, especially with the war in Ukraine, which is having serious consequences there. It will be very difficult to get out of. China is also experiencing a major economic slowdown. The unemployment rate among young people is especially high in the major cities. It is very concerning because China is still the workshop of the world, or at least a major production centre. Then there is Canada and the United States. What will happen? We expect a slowdown. The latest figures are less encouraging.

In the meantime, I believe that the labour market is going through a transformation, and comparing current job market statistics with the ones from a few years ago is tough. We have to be very alert and careful for the next steps.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, whom I greatly respect, spoke at length about Bill C‑31. However, we are supposed to be debating Bill C‑30, which was introduced thanks to the hard work of the NDP. This bill will put an average of $500 into the pockets of Canadians who are struggling to cope with inflation. This measure will help around 12 million Canadians.

Bill C‑31 will provide dental care for all families with children under 12 and will help people who are renters. We are talking about nearly two million Canadians. The NDP had a hand in getting both of these bills introduced.

My colleague spoke about Bill C‑31 and we are currently debating Bill C‑30. I have a simple question: Which of the two NDP bills does he like best?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that bills are introduced by the government. That is why I chided the government and not the NDP. Bill C-30 is well written. It is a few pages long and everything is clear. We support that bill. The Bloc Québécois was already asking the government last fall to increase the GST/HST credit to fight inflation, so we are very happy to see that.

Bill C-31 provides for rental assistance. As it now stands, people in Quebec will not be entitled to that assistance because Quebec has its own program, and the government did not think to harmonize the two. The bill is therefore poorly drafted when it comes to rental assistance.

The same is true for dental care because Quebec has insurance for children aged nine and under. Bill C-31 proposes measures for children aged 11 and under, and again there was no harmonization with the Quebec program. The government cut corners and that is what we are criticizing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the member to let a member ask another question.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech.

I completely agree with the member for Guelph. It is good to reflect with him on ideas that are slightly more complex and on a nuanced approach. These are not very simple issues and it is difficult because of the different challenges, which are complex. For example, we have the war in Ukraine, Canada's current situation, and issues related to the pandemic, as well as the impact of climate change and the climate emergency on our economy and economies around the world.

I want to ask my colleague from Joliette and the Bloc Québécois what they think of the idea of providing a universal guaranteed livable income to everyone to protect all Canadians from these complex problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, who has been a very active member of the Standing Committee on Finance since the beginning of the parliamentary session.

We find the idea of a universal guaranteed livable income interesting, because everyone would have the right to it. That said, we have to determine how it can be applied, particularly in the context of federalism, under which Ottawa manages some programs and Quebec manages others. They are never able to get along. At least, that is what we see with health and infrastructure, for example.

There are a number of challenges, and we often say that it would be easier for Quebec to have its own income by becoming independent than to negotiate it within this federation.

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

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech of the new parliamentary session, I would like to salute the people of Trois-Rivières.

Bill C‑30 offers up a temporary measure, a brief respite. Respite is relief from suffering or a delay in the carrying out of something unpleasant.

I do appreciate the initiative, but I have to say it is tepid and clearly inadequate under the circumstances. I also want to point out, as was mentioned before, that this measure appeared in the Bloc Québécois's budget expectations last spring. We knew then that people would be suffering because of the economic situation.

I want to come back to the word “respite”. Unfortunately, this relief will not come right away. Despite what the bill suggests, we know that the machinery of government will not be able to get it done until November or December. It is going to take some time. I think the government has to treat people fairly in this.

Why bring in such a measure? The Liberals like to talk about treating everyone fairly. When we talk about fair treatment, we mean treatment that is appropriate to the situation. We tend to call this equity. Equity is about recognizing what each individual needs. It means giving more to one person and less to another, depending on the circumstances. It is very different from equality, where everyone is treated the same regardless of economic status, for example.

It is a fair assessment of what each individual is entitled to, but who is “each individual”? It is of course the most vulnerable, those who are struggling the most. I immediately think of seniors who are on a fixed income, while their expenses keep increasing. What does it mean to live on a fixed income? It means no longer having a choice. If having a choice denotes wealth, having no choice is a sign of poverty.

Even though our seniors live in a rich country, it means being forced to choose between getting enough to eat or heating their homes. In short, they are being forced to live in or near poverty. We must ensure that seniors can live in dignity.

Quebec seniors are suffering indescribable discrimination at the hands of the Liberal government, which is denying them fair and equitable treatment. Doubling the GST temporarily is good, but the government should also stop reducing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors between 65 and 75. That is what I hear when I walk around Trois-Rivières and talk to Mireille or Roger, who say, “Where is the justice? I am 68 and I cannot get enough to eat”.

Hearing things like that breaks my heart. In a supposedly wealthy country, it is shameful. Equity means being able to adapt to each person's situation. It means adjusting. When we draw a line between two points, we often draw a straight line and say that it is the shortest path, but in society, not everything is the product of a straight line. Some things are near the line or outside the line. Equity will adapt. I believe that government measures should also adapt to different situations to achieve a greater degree of fairness.

Equity means fairly determining what everyone deserves. Who is “everyone”? Let us not forget low-income families. They cannot accept the response that the Minister of Finance keeps repeating every day, like a mantra, namely that things are better here than elsewhere.

Low-income families do not live in Australia or Japan. They live in Trois‑Rivières, Saint‑Liguori or Gaspé. Low-income families are vulnerable. I am certain no one will be surprised to hear that the word “vulnerable” comes from the Latin word vulnerabilis, which means “one who can be hurt”. Vulnerability is the potential to be hurt. Doubling the GST benefits these families for a little while, but we do not know for how long. Plus, it is not enough. The price of housing, for example, keeps going up, and inflation rose to 7.6% in July.

I think everyone will agree that we need to help the most vulnerable, the hardest hit. To paraphrase Gandhi, the greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest members.

It is time to act like a great nation if we want to claim that title. More social and community housing must be built. The housing shortage in Trois-Rivières is unacceptable. The vacancy rate is less than 1%. The population is increasing but the housing stock is not keeping up. That is a recipe for poverty.

For that reason, in addition to temporarily doubling the GST, the federal government should permanently earmark 1% of its revenue to be transferred to Quebec, which could add the funds to its own housing programs.

That is not all. When we claim to be a great nation, we must do more. I believe that we must preserve the independence of the central bank, seriously address the labour shortage, improve productivity, make fragile supply chains stronger, strengthen the competition regime, and so on and so forth. These measures are in fact a statement that it is imperative that we reclaim our sovereign authority to provide protection. In short, it is about being decent.

We seldom hear the word “decency”. We hear the word “indecency” more often. What is decency? In addition to ending suffering, which means bringing respite, we must not forget that decency means doing good, acting in a proportionate manner and adapting to a situation to improve life. It is the opposite of indecency.

The government is not a program manager. I often say that the government needs to act as a government, or in other words, it needs to take the helm and steer, not act as a manager that is only responsible for dealing with problems. That is diligent governance.

I simply want to say that the government needs to start walking the talk. The Bloc will support the bill, but it has some concerns.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Prime Minister does not like to think about monetary policy. I know the members of the Bloc do care about money policy because I have discussed monetary policy with some of them.

The reality is that it is generally accepted that, when the money supply is increased, it causes inflation. I am not an economist, so do not take it from me, but the reality is that just two days ago, in a speech, Mr. Beaudry, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, said that in hindsight, governments and central banks should have actually withdrawn stimulus measures earlier to keep a lid on inflation.

I am asking, after $400 billion in stimulus spending over the last two years, why would the Bloc agree to throw fuel on the fire of inflation? The people of Quebec, just like all of the people of Canada, are suffering from inflation. These benefits will be eaten up by additional inflation before they have had any effect.

I would appreciate an answer to that question.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for his question.

He started by saying that he is not an economist. I am not an economist either. I am a philosopher. I can talk to the House about decency and indecency, and the duty to protect, but I will leave it up to my colleague from Joliette, who does great work, to talk about monetary policy.

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

Madam Speaker, I look at today's legislation as relief for millions of Canadians. It is going to have a very positive impact on the issue of inflation. I would note, even though we recognize that inflation affects us all, it affects some more than others.

One of the things that I think is missing in the debate is the fact that, when we compare Canada to the rest of the world, our inflation rate is doing quite well. That does not mean we should ignore it. It is the reason it is important that we take measures, such as this legislation, to provide direct relief and money to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Would the member not agree that is a good reason for this bill, and that members should all be supporting it?