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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation, which, from what I am hearing, all members in the House will be supporting, or at least that seems pretty clear from the NDP and the Conservatives. I think people realize that this is something important. It is something that is critical and it is something that people need right now.

What are we talking about? We are talking about a six-month increase of the GST rebates that are given to individuals. This would have a real, meaningful impact for people, in particular those who are struggling the most and those who really need it. For single individuals who have no children, the total GST rebate would be $467. Married or common-law partnerships would see $612, and then there would be $161 for each child under the age of 19.

This is about trying to help individuals, particularly right now, when we know we are experiencing this inflationary problem that has developed over time as a result of a number of different things that have been going on in the world, a number of things outside of the control of any individual country, and we have landed where we are.

We know that we need to take care of each other, and that is what this really comes down to. It comes down to taking care of each other and supporting each other through programs. That is what government is all about. The government is here to establish programs and policies that can have an impact throughout society.

If we took the approach of “every person for themselves”, which, unfortunately, it appears in retrospect that the Conservatives wish we had taken when it came to the beginning of the pandemic, we really would not need much in terms of government. We would not need government to be there to support Canadians and to support each other.

We have heard a lot, and I want to reflect on a comment that the member for Elmwood—Transcona made a few moments ago in answering a question from our friend from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and he phrased it perfectly. We hear the Conservatives talking about EI and CPP as payroll taxes. They are not payroll taxes.

CPP is a pension plan. It is a plan that is paid into by the employee and the employer. It is a pension plan that many people rely on when they get to the age of retirement. When politicians, in my opinion, start toying with the idea of playing around with that fund or not properly ensuring that it has the resources or funds within it, it means that we are going to have problems, from a societal perspective, later on when we find out that it is underfunded.

Likewise, EI is employment insurance. This is an insurance policy. It is funding a policy that allows people to be able to withdraw when they need it the most, if they become unemployed or other circumstances put them in the position of needing it. I do not agree with the assessment of calling it a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. Neither of those programs is, yet we hear that.

I heard the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, the neighbouring riding to mine, pine back to the days of the UCCB, the universal child care benefit that Stephen Harper introduced. They pine about that program as though it is the gold standard for social programs of helping Canadians. The universal child care benefit was a program that literally gave every child, through their parents or guardians, a specific amount of money. It did not matter how much one made. It was not tested based on someone's need whatsoever. How can that be regarded as a social program?

Instead, this government has been focused squarely on putting money into the hands of those who genuinely need it the most. When we look at it, it is not just about supporting individuals. It is smart economic policy. What happens if we give a $100 or $150 payment to a millionaire, somebody who does not need it, quite frankly, through the UCCB? What happens? They will likely put it in a TFSA or they will put it in their bank account and collect interest off of it and it just sits there, because they do not need it.

What happens if we give it to somebody who genuinely needs it? They are going to go out and they are going to spend it. What does that do? That helps, creates and stimulates the economy.

When we pine back to the days of the universal child care benefit, as the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes did, that is not smart policy. It is not smart policy from the societal perspective of supporting each other, and it is not smart policy from an economic perspective. When we invest in people and we take care of each other, we will all be better off. We will see our economy grow in a way that is sustainable and that supports one another.

To that end, one of the arguments that I have heard come up a few times, and I heard it from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, are the concerns over the inflationary impacts of a program like this. I think it is a valid question to be asked, because we know that, when we inject more money into the economy, we run the risk of inflation being attached to that. I think it is a valid question.

However, I would encourage them to go out and talk to some of the individuals, economists, who understand and know this. I will read two quotes from two economists. The first is from Armine Yalnizyan, an economist and Atkinson fellow, and this is what this economist said:

In truth the measures are so modest...that they amount to just over 0.1 per cent of nominal GDP and less than one per cent of current growth, hardly a tail that could wag a dog.

She also said:

Along with the childcare fee rebate, financed by the feds and promised by the Ontario government to start in April (money that has yet to arrive in mailboxes), there’s a lot of talk but not a lot of cash flowing to households. There’s no chance current federal measures will spur inflationary over-spending anytime soon.

Here is another one from David Macdonald, the senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

These transfers are unlikely to have much impact on inflation as inflation is being driven by external factors like the price of gasoline, supply chain issues and the like. These measures are quite targeted and to get the full value of all three, you'd have to be a family making under C$35,000.

In the best case scenario, you could receive about C$2,300 for that family which only amounts to 6.5 percent of income when inflation is running at 7.0 percent....

These measures aren't boosting incomes well above inflation, they are just helping lower income families afford the price increases that have already happened.

These are two economists who are putting to rest, at least in their professional opinions, the notions about inflation and what this could do to inflation, although I think it is a very valid and genuine question to ask, especially in the current climate. However, I hope that those two members, in particular, take comfort in knowing that these two economists do not agree that it would necessarily have a impact.

I do not want to take up much more time than I absolutely have to. I do not want to speak long enough that I have to come back and speak the next time that this comes up for debate. I want people and I want members to have the genuine opportunity to speak to this. I really hope that this is one of those bills that we can see pass quickly, because it really will have an impact on the lives of those who genuinely need it the most.

We need to assist those who need it the most, and I really hope that the House will not play politics with this issue. I hope we will let people have the opportunity to speak to it, but then, within a reasonable amount of time, get to a point where we can send it to committee, have it studied there and then come back, because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting the individuals who need it the most.

I really hope we can work together, because it appears as though we already all support it anyway.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his comments, but I do want to point out one thing about his comment on sending cheques to millionaires. The Auditor General herself pointed out that the Liberal government actually changed the tax code when it was giving away the child benefit bump of $500. It actually changed the tax code so that families making up to $308,000 per year were able to receive that benefit. When the member talked about sending money to people, to those in need, he overlooked that. I think it was $88 million of taxpayers' money that was sent to those über-wealthy.

However, my question actually goes back to the member's comment about helping those truly in need. I want to give an example. The member talked about the GST credit. My two children, whom I love, receive the GST credit. One works relatively part-time and one works relatively part-time and is in school. Their income is low enough, so they will receive a bump.

As much as I love my children, I do not believe that children of someone in our income bracket who are living at home should be receiving that bump. Did the government perhaps consider looking at an income means test based on family income so that we could give more to a single mom or those of low income living by themselves, or would the member consider that in the future, so that we are getting that money to those really in need, as opposed those living at home? We saw $5 billion in CERB going to children living in the homes of wealthy parents. Could we enact something to move that away and truly focus on those in need?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to hear Conservative members talking about programs that are tested based on need. That is a great step in the right direction, and certainly a move away from the model of the universal child care benefit.

Perhaps I did not quite understand the member clearly when he referred to families that are making $308,000. My wife and I combined are making that, and we do not get the money back that he is talking about. I do not know where he is getting that number. Maybe he could help me with that.

Quite frankly, I do not believe that people who are in my position need to get that money. I am not looking for it. I also believe that most people who are in my position would agree that when we get to a certain level of financial stability, there is not the need to rely on these payments. Instead, we could better direct them to those who genuinely need them and provide more to those who genuinely need them, and that is exactly what the Canada child benefit did. It looked at how much individuals made and gave money to individuals to help with their children, based on how much they made. Once they hit a certain threshold, they no longer got it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

The government has introduced three measures to combat inflation. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the GST/HST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. Bill C‑31 contains two more measures: dental insurance for children 11 and under and housing assistance.

With respect to housing, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the people of Quebec will not get their fair share, because this is a Canada housing benefit top-up. Quebec has had its own program for the past 25 years, and it has the right to opt out with compensation, but Bill C‑31 is silent on coordinating benefits. The same goes for dental insurance, which covers children 11 and under. Quebec's dental insurance covers children nine and under. The bill is silent on coordinating benefits.

On behalf of the government, will the parliamentary secretary promise to amend the bill to make sure it harmonizes with Quebec's programs so that my constituents will not be adversely affected?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit to amending the bill. I am not on the committee. I certainly do not have a veto power over the committee or how it works.

If the member is bringing up a very important point about the circumstances in Quebec and how the measures might apply differently, and it sounds like he is, I would suggest that there would be an opportunity at committee for the Bloc Québécois and those who are representing Quebec to bring this issue forward and to talk about it so that individuals could be properly taken care of. If what the member is suggesting is valid, then I do not see why the committee would not properly study it in order to bring forward solutions to address it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is right to give credit to the NDP for having pushed, prodded and pulled the government to put into place a series of measures that help Canadians. The GST credit, that rebate, is on average about $500 that will go to about 12 million Canadians. As well, there is dental care, which is reflected in the other NDP bill and would be put in place to help thousands of Canadian families. Of course, the rental supplement will help nearly two million Canadians.

These are all measures the NDP and the member for Burnaby South fought for, and it is to the credit of the government that it allowed itself to be pushed, prodded and pulled in the right direction to do things that will actually benefit Canadians.

My question is about other measures the NDP has talked about. For example, “greedflation”, which is the intense profiteering we have seen as inflation has risen, means we are of course seeing the cost of food go up, but profits for companies like Loblaws and Sobeys have increased far beyond the increase in the cost of food. Will the government take measures to cut back on this profiteering, which is hurting so many Canadians at this dire time?

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do not care whose idea it was. I do not care if it was the NDP's idea to increase the GST, or if it was done through negotiations or whatever. We are helping Canadians. It does not really matter at the end of the day. I doubt the individual who is receiving the cheque in time to help buy more groceries really cares that it was the NDP that pushed for this, nor do they care that the Leader of the Opposition fought for various different parts of this. All they care about is what supports their government is giving them in their time of need. If the NDP members want to take credit for it, they can fill their boots, because I am perfectly fine with that. My position on this is that we help Canadians to the best of our ability.

To his question about corporate greed, which the NDP continually brings up, I am not shying away from the topic. I hear the NDP bring it up a lot. I would love to hear more about it. If the member for Burnaby South wants to sit down with me and explain his positions on it more and talk about what he thinks some of the solutions should be, I am more than willing to listen.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House will be interested to know that I am literally in the market for a deck. If one asks for quotes for a deck, one will get price x and then price y for cash. What it speaks to is the number of people who do not file income tax returns and therefore will not benefit from the CPP, EI, the HST increase, the rent supplement, and all that sort of stuff.

I am interested in the hon. member's thoughts with respect to the need for Canadians, particularly low-income Canadians, to file their income taxes so they may benefit from all of these things.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Scarborough—Guildwood is looking for help building a deck, I am sure the member for St. Catharines and I can go over and help him. Maybe the Speaker can come too. I do not know about the quality of the deck or how it will turn out, but I am more than willing to do my part.

The member raises an excellent point, and that is why it is our job to encourage and ensure that people are aware of why it is so important to file taxes. Filing taxes is not just about paying money and making sure one has paid their fair share, or trying to avoid taxes here or there. It is also being able to tap into these very important programs that are designed and dedicated for individuals who need them in a time of need. By filing their taxes, people will be able to demonstrate that when it is time.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:19 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the people's House to talk about the important issues Canadians are facing. I will note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. friend and colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets.

Before I get into the substance of my speech on Bill C-30, I would simply note an observation. As I was reading through the orders of the day, I was having to get used to things such as the bill before us being introduced in the King's name. It is certainly something that will take us some time to get used to, as we acknowledged earlier this week Her Majesty had an incredible 70-year rule on the throne, and now King Charles III is taking the helm as monarch and King of Canada.

It has certainly been interesting to observe the Liberals governing this week. They have seemingly participated in a massive pivot, a change of direction, or a change of course, however one wants to define it, but they have finally taken the advice, or I suppose they have heeded the warnings, of the new Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition, both prior to and pretty consistently since I got to know him after first being elected in 2019, has talked a lot about the economy, the impacts of government policy on the economy and ultimately how that affects Canadians. Over the last eight or nine months during which the Leader of the Opposition was running to be leader of the Conservative Party, he talked a lot with Canadians about how economic policy has a direct impact on their lives. However, all of a sudden, once the Leader of the Opposition was elected leader of the Conservative Party, the Liberals decided that they needed to do something about it.

I am sure Liberals heard from their constituents, because I have certainly heard from mine, and in fact, I have heard from quite a few constituents from Liberals ridings who have shared with me how their Liberal MPs are simply not listening. It is interesting that now, all of a sudden, the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister, who has noted quite publicly that he does not spend too much time thinking about monetary policy, would focus their policy agenda on making sure that, at least when it comes to talking points, they are seen to be doing something.

Let us build a foundation of the current circumstances we face. The average Canadian family is facing the devastating consequences of inflation. I recently sent out a householder survey, which I referenced in question period earlier. It asked a number of questions, and one was on the carbon tax. Of those who responded, 94% of constituents said that they are facing challenges related to the increased costs related to the carbon tax. Further, 96% of respondents are facing challenges and struggles.

On my householder surveys, I always give an opportunity for constituents to share stories, leave comments and give me feedback as their representative. From the 96% who said that inflation and increases associated with the cost of living are having negative impacts on their lives, I heard stories of people having to choose between heating their homes and purchasing groceries, of families having to change their grocery-buying habits and of the dramatic increase in food bank usage. It was heartbreaking.

I represent an area of the country, thankfully, that has two of what I call our “legacy” industries, and I am very proud of them both. One of them is agriculture and the other is energy. The prices of oil and, generally, of natural gas, although there are some distribution challenges right now with natural gas, have been up, yet families are still struggling. When it comes to agriculture, although it was fairly spotty, generally my constituency got some rain, unlike much of the country, and agriculture is doing okay, yet those families are still facing challenges related to the cost of living.

Economic policy truly has an impact, and that is why it matters that we talk about these issues. I would just note how a recent Fraser Institute report outlined how a massive change has taken place over the last number of years, so that the most expensive part of a Canadian's life is generally now paying taxes to government.

I am going to highlight a fundamental difference that exists between the left and the right when it comes to public policy in Canada. That is certainly my perspective not only on Bill C-30, but also on much else of what the government does. The Liberals and the left want control. They would rather take Canadians' money and then decide how much they deserve to get back. We see this with the carbon tax. In fact, I found it really ironic when the Deputy Prime Minister talked, I believe it was yesterday, about how outraged she was, and the indignation she had, about how Conservatives were not willing to embrace the carbon tax because of its being an economic mechanism.

It certainly is an economic mechanism. I would suggest that it is bad public policy and certainly misguided. What we see here fundamentally is the ideology of how the Liberals approach things, and I hope Canadians are listening. Liberals and the left, whether that is the Liberals themselves or their coalition partners in the NDP, although they seem to maybe be getting cold feet in that regard and have finally been a little critical of their coalition partners, as well as the Bloc when it comes to much of their economic policy, all want more control. They will take money from Canadians and then decide how much they should give back.

Conservatives have a fundamentally different philosophy. We believe in empowering Canadians. We believe in ensuring that it is Canadians who have the responsibility to deal with the dollars they worked so hard to earn. Before the Liberals jump up and say, somehow, we are heartless and whatnot, Conservatives believe that we need a strong social safety net. We believe in an efficient, compassionate social safety net.

However, that fundamental difference defines much of the debate that we are having. The fact is that the Liberals will more or less, although it is a bit of a strong word, bribe Canadians with their own money and claim it as a solution to the challenges associated with the rise in costs. Fundamentally, that is a short-term solution that economists generally agree will exacerbate the challenge. It is also not going to help in the long term.

Conservatives this past week made it very clear that we are happy to work with the government, but we have some guidelines that I have heard from constituents and I know my colleagues from across the country have as well. We have to put a hard line and stop the massive increases in taxes, the eating away of Canadians' paycheques. These economic principles and philosophies matter.

While Bill C-30 would give some relief to Canadians who are facing the challenges associated with inflation, it is temporary and it is a continuation of a trend of damaging economic policies that ultimately are making our economy weaker and causing Canadians great pain.

Action needs to be taken. I would conclude with this: The Liberals like to stand on their high horse and talk about how they somehow have this massive mandate from Canadians. In the last election, the Conservatives won the popular vote. We did not win the most seats in the House of Commons, but I would encourage Liberal members to take pause and think of the Conservatives not as their enemies but rather as members of the House representing people who have fundamentally different views on how we should approach the challenges facing our country. I would encourage them not to demonize those who would suggest that maybe their misguided policies are leading our country in the wrong direction.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not regard my Conservative colleagues as enemies of the state. They are possibly a bit misguided, but they are not in any way or sense an enemy.

I just wondered whether the member regards Bill C-30 as bribing Canadians with their own money.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member and, certainly, for some of the work that we have done on issues of shared concern related to human trafficking and other things.

Again, this is one of the fundamental differences between the way, generally, that Liberals and Conservatives approach the issues.

While the Liberals are going to double the GST tax credit that will go back to Canadians, Conservatives made it very, very clear over the last number of months, and, in fact, we brought forward a number of initiatives in the House that the Liberals voted against that would have helped address the massive increases that Canadians were facing. These were things like cutting the GST on fuel, gasoline, diesel and propane, which Conservatives proposed as a practical, common-sense solution, and the Liberals voted against. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy, I would suggest, in how Conservatives approach the government purse and the way that tax policy impacts Canadians.

This is giving dollars back to Canadians who did pay the GST, no question. However, we need to fundamentally understand that these are Canadians' dollars. I would certainly suggest that it is Canadians who know best how to spend their dollars, so we should be thinking more seriously about leaving those dollars in their pockets.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We do not always agree with the Conservatives on certain topics, like inflation, for example. We do not agree that the government is entirely responsible for inflation. There is the global situation, but there is also a labour shortage that is contributing to lower demand and higher prices.

One of the Bloc Québécois's proposed solutions to the labour shortage is to create incentives for experienced workers.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one of our proposals, which is to offer a tax credit for experienced workers. We are not talking about giving them money after having taken some away. We are talking about having them pay less tax in order to encourage them to come back to the labour market. I am looking for a consensus and would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this Bloc Québécois proposal.