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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, thank you, to you and your colleagues, for that exceptional moment with the legends of the 1972 Summit Series. I was two years old at the time, but that series, its famous goal and all it meant for Canada has followed me, as it has followed Canadians, throughout my lifetime.

It is my pleasure indeed to launch today's debate on Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, our government's proposal to double the goods and services tax credit for six months and deliver targeted support to Canadians who need it the most. Essentially, it is a bill that would make sure Canadians, especially the most vulnerable among us, get more money back in their pockets.

This important bill will provide additional support to the roughly 11 million people and families who already receive the tax credit, including approximately half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.

It would mean up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children and nearly $500 in the pockets of couples with two children. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average. This is additional support for roughly 11 million eligible people and families, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors. This legislation is part of a new package of support, which includes a Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit.

If the House works together to pass these pieces of legislation, up to half a million children under 12 will be able to see a dentist, some for the first time. Low-income renters, some of the most vulnerable among us, would receive a little extra breathing room. These supports build on our existing affordability plan, which has been putting more money in the pockets of Canadians all year long through the enhanced Canada workers benefit and through cutting child care fees in half by the end of this year, something that is already saving families in my home province of Alberta $5,600 this year.

We are supporting Canadians by increasing the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 and older and by doubling the Canada student grant until July 2023. Under our plan, a couple in Thunder Bay with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care could receive about an additional $7,800 above their existing benefits this year. A single recent graduate in Edmonton with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000 could receive about an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits.

A senior with a disability in Trois‑Rivières could receive over $2,500 more this year than they did last year.

In short, the support measures that we have put in place for Canadians who most need this support, for the most vulnerable, represent real money for them this year, at exactly the right time.

Canadians are facing rising costs and difficult decisions about how to afford the groceries they need or the rent at the end of the month. We want these Canadians to know that I understand, and our government understands, how challenging these past months, and indeed these last two years, have been. However, we also want them to know that their government has a plan and that we will be there for them. We are supporting Canadians who need it the most: our lowest-paid workers, low-income renters and families who cannot afford to have their kids see a dentist.

We are doing it in a responsible way that will not further increase inflation, something that would make life more expensive for everyone for years to come. The rising costs, driven by a global pandemic and by Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, were not of Canada's making, but we will ensure the solutions are.

As Canadians cut back on their spending, our government will do the same. We will do our part not to throw fuel on the inflationary fire. We are committed to finding $9 billion in government savings in our spring budget and to move toward a smaller and smaller deficit.

This year, Canada had the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and Moody's, S&P and DBRS reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

The targeted relief measures we introduced on Tuesday have an additional cost of just 0.1% of Canada's GDP. This legislation is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. The support is the right thing to do at the right time. Canada can afford to be compassionate to the most vulnerable among us, and that is exactly what we will be.

This week we learned that inflation in Canada is at 7%, which is down from 7.6% in July and down from 8.1% in June. While these numbers are still too high, the trend is encouraging.

The Bank of Canada has the tools and the mandate it needs to fight inflation in Canada. Global supply chains are getting sorted out. The price of gas in Canada and around the world is dropping. Today, we are dealing with the impacts of a crisis that occurs only once in a generation, but we will find out way through, as we did with everything that has happened over the past two years.

As we help the most vulnerable Canadians deal with the increased cost of living, our priority over the next few months will be to ensure that our economy is growing, that our businesses have the workers they need, and that Canadians can continue to find good, rewarding jobs that pay well.

The global economy needs what Canada produces: the food to feed the world, the natural resources and critical minerals entire countries and industries depend upon, and so much more. We will provide the goods our democratic allies need today, and we will provide the goods they will need tomorrow, all while providing great jobs here in Canada, and together we will build a net-zero future around the world. We will do so in a way that creates long-term sustainable jobs for Canadians from one part of this country to the other.

Our government wants to make sure Canadians and the Canadian economy come through this challenging economic period as quickly as possible and we are ready to thrive when we do. That means building an economy that works for everyone, a Canada where everyone can earn a decent living for an honest day's work and a Canada where nobody gets left behind. That is our focus and our commitment to Canadians.

I urge all of my colleagues in all parties to help get this bill passed so that we can make the cost of living more affordable for all Canadians.

I am calling on all parliamentarians from all parties to work with us to get this legislation passed and to get this support to Canadians. Our constituents want to see us working on their behalf, not playing games. They want to see us moving forward, not moving backward with delays and procedural tactics.

To all of us in the House, the winners on the ice in 1972 showed us how to get it done then, let us all work together now and get this done for Canadians today.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to reflect on a quote and answer a question.

Avery Shenfeld, the chief economist at CIBC, said, “In a period of high inflation and excess demand, cutting taxes or handing out cheques can add fuel to the inflationary fire, and make the job of a central bank that’s raising rates to cool demand all that more troublesome.”

The government spent this whole summer in repose. I imagine its members were polling, but they did not do the hard work. In their budget this spring, they talked about a policy review to reprioritize spending to cut back wasteful spending. Why did they not do that hard work so that when they presented this tax relief to the low-income families who are going to depend on it, the inflation concerns were at least diminished, if not, on a one-for-one basis, removed?

Why does the government continue to spend and make things worse? Why is it not doing the hard work of finding equivalent cuts?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from the Conservative Party is completely wrong with his assertions. We are investing in the lives of 11 million Canadians and families, and we are doing so with $3.2 billion in new spending against a total size of our economy of $2.7 trillion. We are talking about just over 1/1,000th of the size of our economy. That will not keep inflation rising.

Going from one economist to another, Trevor Tombe, who is one of the best economists the country has, said, “When you unpack the data to see what the drivers of inflation are, most of it, by a pretty wide margin, is tied to global factors...Canadian federal government spending or transfers or tax changes really wouldn't have a big effect.”

We are doing the responsible thing by targeting measures, supports to those who need it the most, and making sure we are not increasing inflation to make the job of the Bank of Canada that much harder. We are focused on Canadians, with a real plan and real results.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. Bill C‑30 talks about increasing the GST rebate. That is a good measure that could have been brought in sooner.

This measure was announced at the same time as the measures in Bill C‑31 concerning a dental plan and rent assistance. However, if we look closely at the bill, the rent assistance is provided through the Canada housing benefit. This benefit does not exist in Quebec because it already had a program in place, and so the right to opt out with full compensation. The bill does not mention that right, however. There is no mention of harmonization. The same goes for the dental plan. The plan proposed in the bill would apply to children 11 and under. Quebec's program applies to children 10 and under. Again, there is no plan for harmonization.

Will the government commit to revising Bill C‑31 to account for the programs that already exist in Quebec? Is the government simply ignoring Quebec yet again?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his multiple questions. Looking at Bill C-30, which is before us today, it is clear that we are going to double the GST credit. That is very important. We are hoping to have the Bloc's support so that we can get this bill passed.

I just want to address the dental care issue. My colleague noted the age limits and the programs that exist in Quebec. In Quebec, the dental plan covers children under the age of 9. For the country as a whole, we are talking about children under the age of 12. We are already aware of that. With respect to the housing benefit, we will certainly be working closely with Quebec on this. We know how to collaborate with Quebec. We see Quebec. Quebec is part of Canada, which is moving forward in the world.

We will be there for Quebeckers and Canadians during this inflationary cycle.

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

Madam Speaker, the inflationary pressures that too many Canadian families are experiencing right now are not new. They have been with us for most of this year, as far back as early spring. In fact, it was back in May of this year that the NDP used its opposition day motion to call for precisely this measure.

The truth is that families in my riding, across my province and across this country could have used this help a lot earlier. Why did the Liberals wait until this moment in time to finally get this much-needed help to struggling families right across this country?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think there are two things at play here.

One is to make sure that when we are in a global inflationary period caused by Putin's war in Ukraine, supply chains that really have not been unsnarled yet from the pandemic and China's zero-COVID policy, we take a careful approach to make sure the measures we have are targeted so they do not increase inflation and make the Bank of Canada's job harder. That is one piece of this.

When it comes to making sure that people, this spring and throughout the summer, had benefits they could call on to make life more affordable, we passed the increase to the Canada workers benefit, we made sure we signed child care deals with everybody across the country, we made sure we had supports and—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, if I may, just 15 minutes ago we had a wonderful experience here with the Summit Series hockey legends on the floor of the House of Commons. What a wonderful treat that was. I was in grade 5 at the time, and I can recall the overwhelmingly wonderful and prideful feelings back in 1972. Here we are celebrating it 50 years later. I did get my picture with Paul Henderson, which I thought was quite cool.

Having said that, we are debating Bill C-30. This is a piece of legislation that every member of the House of Commons should be voting in favour of. We often hear about inflation. When we think of inflation and the impact it is having on communities, we should recognize the fact that this bill would put more money in the pockets of millions of Canadians in every region of our country.

This is really positive and helpful at a time when Canadians are looking for strong leadership from Ottawa. I hope that every member of the House will not only vote in favour of the legislation, but recognize the importance of the quick passage of the legislation. We could make a strong, collective statement to Canadians today by supporting this initiative.

We might differ on this. Actually, I should not even say “might”. We differ greatly if we contrast the Conservative Party with the Liberal Party, the party in government. I will spend some time on that contrast.

The most significant thing for me going into this session, the point that I really wanted to emphasize, which is something the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal caucus have talked a great deal about, is that we want an economy that works for all Canadians. That is something we are committed to as a government.

From the very beginning, we have had a Prime Minister who talked about the importance of Canada's middle class and of forming government policy that helps Canada's middle class and those who are striving to become a part of it. We can look at the initiatives we have taken as a government, not only today with a legislative initiative that will lead to budgetary measures, but from the very beginning. We have brought up issues, and we could ask where the Conservative Party has been.

As an example of that, there is the additional tax on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. The Conservative Party voted against that particular tax. The Conservatives might ultimately argue that it is tax and they do not like taxes, and that is why they voted against it, but it was a tax on Canada's wealthiest, asking for that fair share.

Shortly after, or virtually at the same time, we brought in percentage tax breaks for Canada's middle class. Despite all of the pomp and ceremony of the Conservative leadership race, today's leader of the Conservative Party voted against that tax break for Canada's middle class.

There are different ways that we can support Canadians. Today we have a very targeted approach and a way to ensure we are putting money in pockets, real money, by giving a tax benefit, the goods and services tax benefit.

We have done it in other ways too. A good example is the Canada child benefit. Again, when bringing forward this program, there was no sliding scale of any form. It was the individuals who are finding it a little more difficult, as maybe their disposable income is not quite high, versus the multi-millionaires. Why not establish a program that would ensure there is a higher sense of equity and fairness? That is what we did.

Take the Canada child benefit, for example, in Winnipeg North. I estimate that close to $10 million a month is going into Winnipeg North alone, and I am one of 338 constituencies. This gives us a sense of the commitment.

This morning we were debating legislation in regard to dental care for children under the age of 12. Again, it would appear as if the Conservatives are going to vote against that piece of legislation. Imagine the money this would put into the pockets of families. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of families. As a result, they would not have to pay for their child under 12 who needs to get some dental work done. It is legislation that would help Canadians.

We talked about the goods and services tax benefit, which is a positive thing. The doubling of that credit is going to have a very real and tangible impact.

Based on what we saw this morning and based on what we have seen before from the Conservatives, they talk a good line or like to think they talk a good line. If they are genuine with many of the things they say, this is the type of legislation they should be voting in favour of.

It is interesting when they downplay the importance of government programs. I raised this morning during debate the first universal national child care program and the positive impact it is going to have. Imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be going to families to support child care. We have seen first-hand the impact it had in the province of Quebec. We know the benefits of it. Again, that is money that is going to people, much like the legislation here is giving real money to people. The benefits are overwhelming, yet the Conservatives oppose it and talks about getting rid of that particular program.

They talk about the CPP. Remember, in negotiations that had taken place, we got provinces and stakeholders onside to see an increase in CPP. The Conservatives call that a tax. It is not a tax; it is an investment. It is workers today who will be able to retire with more money. That is what this is. The Conservatives try to put a twist on it to try to give the impression that it is an outright tax. I think that does a disservice.

I believe we look, in many ways, to leaders of our communities to provide the information and assurances that we have a government that truly cares and wants to advance good, sound government policy. Over the last number of years, including prepandemic, during the pandemic and now today, we have continued to bring forward legislative and budgetary motions and bills and legislation to advance the interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Today's bill would have an impact on close to 11 million people. Hopefully the Conservatives will not only support it but want to see its quick passage.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have three quick questions for the parliamentary secretary.

First, would he agree that every MP in this House should be able to speak to any bill if it means something to their constituents?

Second, I am wondering about the member's sort of obsession with Conservatives. He mentioned the word “Conservative” at least 10 times today in his speech, 381 times in this session of Parliament and 2,899 times in this House of Commons.

Finally, does the parliamentary secretary support tax cuts to our low-income Canadians, our seniors and our most vulnerable?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, at times it can be a challenge to hold the Conservatives accountable for all the weird things they say, and that often means that I have to bring them into the public discussion. I am pleased to hear that the member is doing word counts of how often I am saying things. I can appreciate that.

In regard to members being able to speak, even when I was in opposition, I always believed that there is a need to look at ways in which the Standing Orders can be modified or changed to modernize the House of Commons. I would suggest to the member that we could find different ways to do that, whether it is through a dual chamber or what I call “debate Fridays”. There are opportunities for us to enhance the numbers of hours of debate, which would hopefully encourage more people to engage in the debate.

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

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

As I said to his colleague, the minister, we are in favour of increasing the GST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. That is actually something we have been calling for, and we think it should have been done long ago to help the less fortunate fight inflation.

The measures in Bill C‑30 were proposed at the same time as those in Bill C‑31. I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

Members of Parliament were invited to a technical briefing on Bill C‑31, but it happened long after the one for journalists. Does he think it is right to put the media ahead of parliamentarians, the people who pass bills?

Bill C‑31 includes a $500 rental subsidy for 1.8 million people. That adds up to $900 million, yet they are calling it $1.2 billion. What is up with the extra $300 million? Is it for management fees? Is it for WE Charity? Can he explain that disconnect?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, If we take a look at Bill C-31, we see the benefits that the member highlights for people who are renting, but the real nugget in that bill, from my perspective, is the dental program, which is going to assist children in being able to get dental work that might not take place otherwise. At the same time, we can ensure that people who need that dental work are being subsidized as much as possible, although it may not be 100%, as there are some limits to it.

That was just this morning. This afternoon we are bring forward another bill, which looks at doubling the tax credit, and that is going to be helping Canadians. I think what we are seeing as we come back into this session is a government agenda that is dealing with a very serious—

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

Questions and comments; the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for what I think is a very important piece of legislation that will help many Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

However, I do want to mention that the New Democratic Party tabled this very same request of the government last May. All of a sudden it took New Democrats to force the government to finally act and to see results for Canadians. We have been clear, as a party, that we want to see results for Canadians, as they are seeing one of the greatest cost-of-living challenges in a generation. This support is needed. Albertans, where I am from, are just $200 away from not making their rent.

Why did the government not do this sooner, when we called for it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been very open in listening to all members of Parliament on all sides of the House. Over the last three years we have brought in all sorts of programs, whether it is CERB, direct payments for seniors and people with disabilities or support for students. There has been a smorgasbord of all sorts of programs over the last three years and up to today, not to mention the programs prior to the pandemic itself.

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

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Passports; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Before I go any further, let us all recognize that this bill ultimately proposes, for six months on a temporary basis, to increase the GST credit for those earning up to $49,200, or to $58,500 if it happens to be a household with children. That is when the benefit will be fully phased out. The cost of doing this will be around $2.5 billion. To put it another way, this will be yet another $2.5 billion being injected into our economy, where it will be spent driving, up further demand. This is the inflationary cycle that we are in.

Let us take a moment to stop and think about that. I am certain that I am not alone in hearing from citizens who are facing monthly mortgage payment increases they cannot afford. The stress and anxiety this is causing to many Canadian families is severe. However, let us also recognize that not everyone is impacted by this. Many of those who are wealthy are not only not impacted; some are actually coming out ahead and earning more interest on their savings and investments.

However, some of the financially most vulnerable, often working families with good jobs and living in established neighbourhoods, are the hardest hit. Let us keep in mind that they did not create this situation, but they are certainly being disproportionately impacted by it.

What have we heard from the government until only recently? Let us harken back to June, just as this place was preparing for the summer break. My office and, I am confident, a large majority of other members' offices, were getting call after call from people struggling with $2-a-litre gas, runaway grocery costs and rents. Conservative MPs, in question period after question period, were calling for the government to hear these calls and to act.

What did we get? We got a lecture by the finance minister on Bay Street, essentially telling our constituents that they never had it so good. The government tried to repackage its last two budgets as a so-called affordability plan, claiming that benefits were tied to inflation. I should note that the inflation was from last year and does not reflect the record high inflation of this year, so those CPI increases are from last year. It is a big shortfall that many are upset about. The minister claimed at the time that this was what was needed when clearly it was not.

Then what happened? Silence. There was so much silence that I have called it the “summer of silence”, as the government appeared to shut down. Sure, more taxpayer-funded projects were being announced. They were announced almost daily, keeping the ”Ottawa spends” Twitter account posting at a record pace, but what did the government do while Canadians saw more inflation records and higher interest rates? They saw nothing in response from their federal government. Believe me, I tried to look for statements with any recognition of what Canadians were going through.

What we can assume is that the Liberals spent the summer polling. I can only assume that when they came back, they did not like the numbers they were seeing, and that is why we are here today. Only now, after Conservatives have been banging on pots and pans about gas, groceries and rents, as well as increased mortgage costs, has the government finally conceded that it was wrong on inflation.

Do members remember that it was the Minister of Finance who claimed that deflation was the major concern and that the Conservatives had it all mixed up? Then when inflation was heading through the roof, the Liberals pretended that it was not. Wrong again. Then they said that their housing budget in the spring was actually an affordability plan, but it turned out that it did little for either. They were three strikes out.

While the government posted quarter after quarter of record revenues due to inflated prices, Canadians slipped further and further behind. When the Canadian public needed them, the only action they received was a government that acted as if it were uninterested, disconnected and distant. That is remarkable for a government that likes to say it has Canadians' backs. Here we are, months after the fact, discussing a payment that will not likely help those that it targets—students, persons with disabilities, pensioners and low-income families—until November or December, at best. How much suffering will happen before these payments finally arrive in the mail?

Inflation, it is said, is a silent tax that predominantly hurts the most vulnerable. I am sure any of the people who have spoken with me will tell us that is true, but what is also true is that the pain I speak of goes much further than just those targeted in Bill C-30. There are others who are also finding it harder and harder.

That list with the latest GDP projections downgraded our GDP for this year by a full percentage point. With growing unemployment and with new payroll and carbon taxes set to increase in the new year—and this before we take into account higher interest rates—there will be more “middle class and those seeking to join it” who will not be doing well.

Let me explain by returning back to Bill C-30, the bill that is essentially capped and fully phased out for those families making $58,500, which includes the vast majority of working families who are being hit the hardest. I do not want to make my comments sound partisan for the sake of being partisan, but our banks are not partisan. Their chief economists are typically offering unbiased advice, and they are all clear that the government cannot continue to pour more fuel on this inflationary fire. The reason I reference government spending is that it is something within our control to deal with.

Let me provide another example of something we can control. We have all watched skyrocketing gas prices dramatically increase inflation. Of course, with so many of our goods being delivered to market through our supply chains, which are burning gasoline to do that, there is a serious compounding of higher gas prices. That makes everything more expensive. This is one lesson we learned clearly over these past months. That is precisely what a carbon tax does: It drives up the cost of fuel and, by extension, inflation.

I know some members will say that there are rebates. Here is the thing. For those like the Minister of Finance who live in a city like Toronto and do not own a car, I have no doubt they would come out ahead with the carbon tax rebates, but if they lived in a place like Hedley, B.C., in my riding, largely because it is the only place where you can find affordable housing, they would not come out ahead. Why? It is because Hedley has no hospital. It has no high school. It has no major grocery store or insurance agent. To access these services, they would need to either drive to Princeton, Keremeos or in some cases Penticton. That is true for so many rural municipalities across Canada. For them, carbon taxes are devastating. They do not treat people equally and they favour those who live in larger urban areas.

Why should Canadians be discriminated against because of their postal code? No one living in a rural community pays less income tax than a person living in Vancouver or Toronto, yet the federal Liberal government does not treat them equally. That is why our official opposition caucus will continue to call on this Liberal government to scrap the carbon tax. None of our major trading partners has it. It is time to recognize that.

We will also see an increase in payroll taxes in the new year. Both CPP and EI premiums will increase. This will result in more money coming to Ottawa and less money staying in the household incomes of Canadians. At a time of higher inflation, with crushing interest payments, this makes things worse, not better. That is why our opposition caucus has called on the current government to stop all tax increases. We know the Liberal government likes to say that it is not its fault, but there are other countries that did precisely as Canada did and have similar problems. In some cases, it is even worse.

None of this changes the fact that we have a serious affordability crisis here in Canada. We would not be here debating this small band-aid of a bill were that not the case. That is ultimately the problem. In this case, providing some of the GST they have paid back to them at such a challenging time is something we, as the official opposition, would support, no differently than we would have supported GST relief on gas and diesel. Unfortunately, that measure failed to win support, as it is ideologically against the NDP and Liberal desire to see higher gas prices here in Canada, regardless of what the benefits would be for the general population.

Earlier this week, Bank of Canada deputy governor Paul Beaudry said, in hindsight, governments and central banks should have withdrawn stimulus measures much earlier, as their economies recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic, which likely would have put a lid on inflation. They, of course, did not do this, but it is a clear admission from the Bank of Canada that the “always be spending” approach favoured by the Liberal government has played a huge role in how we got here. If we listen to most of the major banks, inflation is not something the Liberal government can simply spend its way out of, and I worry about that, because unlike previous Liberal governments, the present Liberal government and the Prime Minister seem to have no understanding that we cannot spend Canadians out of inflation.

We are told that we may be in this situation for potentially the next two years and that interest rates may have to go even higher, if the Liberal government continues to spend. That is a point I made earlier to the Minister of Tourism. Why did they not use the summer to actually do the hard work that was in the budget, where they said they had identified billions of dollars in potential savings through a policy review? Why did they not pare back that spending over the summer and then produce this bill, having done the hard work of trying to reduce inflation while helping Canadians?

However, they did not do that. They do not, like our leader, the member for Carleton, have a pay-as-we-go rule, where we are trying to make sure Canadians are getting maximum value for every dollar that is used and that it is to their benefit. Unfortunately, the government seems to only know one lever, and that is to spend.

There are Canadian households that are barely hanging on, and they cannot afford any higher interest rates, nor can they afford two years of more pain and suffering. I am certain that every member of this House has likely heard from citizens in dire straits right now. Do we listen to them? Do we listen to experts and central bankers who say to stop the spending, or do we continue to have the Prime Minister's Office dictate more never-ending spending to help fuel this inflationary fire?

Let us not forget that just two years ago the Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said, “If you have got a mortgage or if you are considering making a major purchase...you can be confident as rates will be low for a long time.”

Some of the people who followed that advice in good faith are now in a dire financial situation. I do not say that to point fingers of blame, because that helps no one in this situation, and likely no one in this situation will be helped by the bill we are here debating today. I point this out because we need to recognize that many of the Canadians who worked hard, who followed the rules and did all of the right things are suffering right now, and the government needs to recognize that.

The latest headlines are saying that home ownership is on the decline. Many young Canadians I have spoken to have largely given up on home ownership. Their hope is not to own, but just to keep their heads above water. Paying down student debt, finding a safe rental and trying to raise a family while putting gas in their car and food on their table is difficult enough. They know the hard work, but under the current government they have lost hope. This crisis is real, and it affects some households all across Canada.

Before I close, I would like to share a thought. First of all, Canada's Conservatives, under the member for Carleton's leadership, will be supporting this bill. However, as we all know, while this bill would help some, a great many will be left behind. This is one of the challenges with government bills like this one. Inevitably the government picks the winners and the losers. In voting to support this bill we recognize that we will be helping some. However, I know in my riding for some of those who are most adversely impacted right now, not just by inflation but by crippling interest rates that will be increased by this bill, this bill would do nothing to help them. I think we all need to be critically aware of those who are still suffering and will not be helped by this bill.

Let us also bear in mind that those this bill intends to help will not receive help until November or December at the soonest. However, many people live in fear of higher interest rates for their mortgage or going to the grocery store and walking out with less and less, because they just cannot afford it. Who can blame them for these fears? The affordability crisis is real, and I am hopeful that all members in this place realize that it is more than a talking point.

Also, as people see less and less of themselves reflected in the government, they are looking more and more to my party to step up, to continue to be their voice, to remind the Liberals that more is not always better. A government that cannot do things like issue passports or resolve lineups at airports should stick to its knitting instead of constantly seeking to expand government. It needs to be reminded that government office is a duty where those around the cabinet table are there to serve Canadians and not the other way around, which is why Conservatives will support the bill: to offer tax relief, to serve Canadians who are hurting and to advocate for the ones who were left out by Bill C-30. It is a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start with a couple of things. First, I heard the member say that no other trading partner has a price on pollution or a “carbon tax” as he referred to it, which is not true. Fourteen out of 31 of the OECD countries do tax pollution, including Japan, the United Kingdom and France.

The member also talked at great length about the price on pollution or a carbon tax in B.C. However, my understanding is that B.C. has its own carbon tax. Indeed, B.C. is not utilizing the carbon tax that is imposed, because it chose to do its own model, which was the premise of this entire exercise of pricing pollution, so the member is slightly perhaps misleading by making that comment.

Finally, at the beginning of the member's speech, he talked about the supports that would be put in place as a result of the bill, but that perhaps spending this money would add further to inflation. I do not reject the economic theory behind that. I recognize that he said he is going to be supporting the bill, but is he suggesting that we just abandon people because if we spend any new money on them we are just adding to inflation? Is his suggestion that, because it will contribute to inflation, we should just not spend money on people?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will start with the last question the member opposite had and see if I have time for the other ones.

First of all, in a question earlier to the Minister of Tourism during his speech, I asked specifically why the government did not do the hard work within the budget that was announced this year. The Liberals said that they would have billions of dollars from a policy review to look at curbing back spending. They could have easily, dollar for dollar, gone through these other programs to find things that are either wasteful or no longer necessary and actually put forward a plan to say, “Look, we are going to be reducing the cost of government here while we put forward this GST tax relief for Canadians to help them.” That would have actually lessened or even alleviated the inflationary concerns regarding this bill, but they do not do the hard work.

This government is built to spend with this “always be spending” Prime Minister and this “always be spending” finance minister. This is the challenge we have here: The environment in which they make policy decisions is no longer 2015. They need to do better when it comes to doing these things. This is not a balanced way to be helping people. A proper way would be to find balance and savings.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech. I am fortunate to serve with him on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The government has announced three measures to fight inflation: the payment of GST refunds under Bill C-30, and dental benefits and rental assistance under Bill C-31.

My colleague was with me for the briefing on Bill C-30, and it went well. However, members of the House were not briefed on Bill C-31 until well after journalists were.

I would like to my colleague to share his thoughts on that. Does he think that the government lacks respect for the members of the House?

Again with regard to Bill C-31, does my colleague agree that we should ask the government to split the bill into two separate ones, since dental benefits and rental assistance are two very different types of measures?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, this government definitely lacks respect for Parliament and parliamentarians. That is true.

The problem is that the government believes that the other parties are not important. It uses the media for its own purposes. It is important for all parliamentarians that the government treat all members with a modicum of respect. I would encourage the government to think about that.

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

Madam Speaker, when I was listening to the member's speech, I heard him lament that this GST credit is going to be coming too late, not for the next couple of months. On that point I agree. I think this should have come much sooner. We know the inflationary pressure affecting families across the country started much earlier in the year and families have been suffering for too long.

I am puzzled, because if the member feels that these interventions should have come sooner, why did he and his party join with the Liberals in May to vote against the NDP? Why did he not support New Democrats in redirecting that into benefits to help families, such as a doubling of the GST credit? We called for this back in May and he voted against it back then.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my fellow British Columbian answered his own question. The New Democrats tend to want too many things connected to too many other things. They are ideologically against the oil and gas sector, despite its being one of the chief sources of green technologies and despite its helping pay for hospitals and other important social services. They are ideologically opposed to that.

Conservatives look at every single request, whether it comes from the government or through a motion, and we look to see what is in the best interests of Canadians. Today we have seen that this is important to help a small targeted group of the population that we know is hurting. Inflation, as I said, is a silent tax that particularly harms the most vulnerable, but this is not supporting broad-based things like reducing GST at the pumps.

I will also remind the member that he had the opportunity to support that and did not. When his constituents ask him what kinds of things he has done for people that are outside of this bill, I would ask him to look in the mirror and say that he voted against giving people a break at the pumps because he is ideologically against oil and gas and the utilization of fossil fuels. This cuts both—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the shadow minister of finance if he believes these tax credits will be vaporized by the ever-increasing inflation and cost of living that Canadians are facing now and into the future.

Has he done some research and has he heard anyone say that these cheques coming at the end of the year are going to offset what people would be paying for in the long term and what they have been paying for years now in inflation and the carbon tax? Especially on January 1 with the increases in payroll taxes and on April 1 with the increase in the carbon tax, are these cheques going to help or is it just going to be too little too late?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I thank my colleague for his work, standing up for his constituents.

First, I hope that the Prime Minister can avoid wanting to act as Santa Claus and handing out these kinds of cheques himself during that time. That is just a bit of a joke.

Getting to the issue, this one-time help, which Conservatives support, is welcome tax relief for families, which would be around $467. The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table, not to mention the rising costs of heat, gasoline and rent. In British Columbia, where we have tons of natural gas, we are seeing natural gas prices go up. We are seeing, right now, that people cannot get by. If it is a cold winter, it will be really difficult, especially for those areas that do not have access to things like natural gas.

This is only a small piece. It is already going to be up against so much inflation in groceries, gas prices and home heating.

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Winnipeg North basically just answered the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley's question.

Our citizens do not live outside the country. They live here. We need to have the decency to put caring for people and their health ahead of any considerations pertaining strictly to inflation. It does not do any good to control inflation if people are starving to death.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to share the concerns of my constituents in Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix about the current labour shortage. I very much appreciated the speech from my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who stressed the importance of taking care of seniors and the unemployed.

In my colleague's opinion, how can Bill C-30 help retain workers in regional markets, for instance in the tourism sector, and help improve the living conditions of seniors who could return to work, perhaps even part time, in order to participate in the economy?

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is complex. I believe that incentives could and should be introduced. Doubling the GST credit is a good start. However, I think tax benefits are needed for people returning to the labour market. Certain monetary incentives, particularly on the tax front, could help address this problem.

I am not an economist, but I know that something needs to be done.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Bill C-30.

I am in Winnipeg now. I was in Ottawa as recently as this morning. Earlier this week, for the first time in the 10 years I have lived here, a couple of seniors set up camp in Park Circle here in Transcona, which is where we have our cenotaph. The Main Street Project has since visited, and the seniors have moved on from the park. I can certainly appreciate the concerns residents had and why they may not want somebody living in the park across the street from their houses, but I could not find it in my heart to be angry, because they are a couple of seniors who no longer have a place to live.

We have heard stories like this, and we are hearing more of them. People are seeing the effects of higher prices, and particularly higher housing prices, on people in their communities. There are folks who are camping out in bus shelters because they have nowhere else to turn. We are in this really challenging moment, challenging to be sure for the Canadians who are experiencing this directly and do not have a place to sleep, as well as for those who are now seeing people living in their communities in ways they never imagined they would and wondering what that means, not only for those folks, but also for themselves and their safety, because we know when people are desperate it sometimes results in some unfortunate behaviour that has an affect on the wider community.

People are experiencing this in all sorts of ways. At the grocery store, there are folks putting things back on the shelves or changing what they buy in order to change some of their family's habits to conform better to the realities of budgeting in the inflationary period we are experiencing. Even though, from a public health point of view, we are moving further away from the peak pandemic point, the fact of the matter is that our economy is still very much affected by the pandemic. We have not come back yet. That is one of the reasons people need help.

Members, and Canadians who have been listening to the news, will know there has been a lot of debate in this place about this moment of inflation and what the causes are. There was a good article published by some economists recently that essentially said that the main forces of inflation are energy prices, housing prices and grocery prices. When we think about the role that energy, housing and food play in our lives, if those are the things going up in price, we can imagine people really feel that in their budget.

There is no real alternative. We cannot choose not to have a roof over our head. We can end up in a situation where we do not have a roof over our head, but nobody is choosing to live on the street as a first option. We cannot choose not to eat. We cannot choose not to heat our home in the winter months in Canada, if we are lucky enough to have one. That is why people are feeling the squeeze. It is because the costs of the things we cannot do without continue to rise.

There are those in this place, particularly the new leader of the Conservative Party, who would have everyone believe that somehow this is simply the fault of big-spending governments, and if government would just get out of the way the free market would step in to provide housing for the homeless, provide affordable food for those who need it and cannot pay for it, or provide energy at a fairer price. I would call on Canadians to think hard about that line and the bill of goods trying to be sold to them by this new leader of the Conservative Party.

We all know that the oil and gas companies have not had the best interests of consumers at heart for a long time. That is not a news flash. Anyone who has filled up their car to go out to the lake on a long weekend knows that oil and gas companies have been there to gouge Canadians with every possible excuse. There are also some really challenging reasons out there in the world right now. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is just one that has caused some real supply issues in the oil and gas sector. We can bet they used that as an excuse to raise their prices, not because the gas currently in the tanks at gas stations got any more expensive or they had to retroactively pay a premium for it, but because of speculation about future oil and gas markets.

Really, it is just an opportunity to make more money now, and we are seeing that in the bottom line of oil and gas companies that are logging record profits. This is not just record revenue, but record profit, which means what they are taking home and giving to their rich CEOs, investors and board members is much more than it has ever been.

They are making that money. That money is not falling from the sky. That money is not coming from nowhere either. That money is coming directly out of the pockets of Canadians who need to pay for gas at the pumps to get to work, do the things they need to do in their lives and heat their homes.

In other jurisdictions, we are seeing governments that are willing to act. We have seen it in the United Kingdom, where there is a windfall profit tax levied on oil and gas companies to take back some of the additional profit those companies are making in these difficult circumstances and to invest that back in people.

That is just one example of a jurisdiction that recognizes what is going on is not simply government largesse driving inflation. It recognizes that corporate greed is playing a real role in driving that as well. Those profits being logged are coming out of the pockets of citizens, and they can be taken back to be reinvested in citizens, as we must do if we are going to keep our communities safe, our neighbours housed and make sure kids have a proper breakfast and lunch when they go to school so they can learn what they need to learn to become productive members of society and to enrich their own lives in all the ways a good education will do.

We do not hear outrage from the Conservative leader about that extra profit on the part of oil and gas companies. We do not hear him admonishing those companies for taking this moment as an opportunity to pad their pockets.

When we think about housing, which is another major driver of inflation right now, the new leader of the Conservative Party would have us believe that somehow this problem was created in the last two years. He would have us believe that somehow the liquidity the government made available to banks created it.

People talk about pandemic benefits and how they should have been wrapped up and how they drove inflation. People who normally might have made $4,000 or $5,000 a month were living on $2,000, and we are supposed to believe that was inflationary. That is ridiculous. I have said that many times in this place, and I will continue to say it.

If there is anything that actually caused inflationary pressure from the government's spending package, it would be these two things. One, and this one drives me nuts, is the wage subsidy program, which we know many companies benefited from and made extraordinary profits from at the same time. This is something that never ought to have happened. They should not have been allowed to take from the wage subsidy pot while they were logging huge profits, and there should have been a mechanism for paying some of that back if they were making extraordinary profits.

When we talk about an excess profit tax, this is part of what we are talking about. It is one of the reasons we think it is just and good to tax excess profits, because in some cases those excess profits were a function of public spending and went to rich CEOs, their buddies and investors, and it should not have. It never should have come out of the public purse for that purpose. That money was for companies to pass directly on to their employees to run their businesses as usual, and not to make extraordinary profits.

In some cases, that did happen. In many cases it happened, and that is good. It is something we called for and supported. What we did not support was it being abused, and from the beginning we said the government needed to have a mechanism to make sure it was not abused. There was no concern from the government to get that piece of the puzzle right, and there were really no proactive solutions proposed at the time by the Conservatives either to make that happen. There is certainly some frustration there.

Another place where there was a lot of public spending, and CERB and the wage subsidy public spending paled in comparison to what was spent on this, was the liquidity that was made available to major banks on day one.

That approach was also taken in the 2008 recession by the Conservative government. The Conservative government, on which, incidentally, the new leader of the Conservative Party sat at the cabinet table, also granted a huge amount of liquidity to banks. If that made investors feel more bold or made banks willing to lend more, there is a case to be made that it contributed to the acceleration of housing price increases, which was already off the chain long before the pandemic.

How did that happen? I know people do not always like a history lesson, but to really understand what happened, the fact is that it goes back to the mid-nineties when the Liberal government of the day cut the national housing strategy. It did not reduce it but got rid of it. That strategy was producing somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 to 30,000 units of affordable or social housing every year, where rent was actually geared to income. That went on, and it meant that we did not get any more meaningful injections of affordable or social housing supply. It was left to the market. That is what happened in the nineties.

We hear the leader of the Conservative Party say to let the free market reign and people will having housing, as if there are a bunch of developers just waiting to give housing to people who cannot afford it. He says they are not going to do it now, but when the government gets out of the way, developers will discover their generosity. It is such a ridiculous story. I do not even know how people can listen to it, let alone how much it gets repeated, not just in this place but in the media, as if it is something that could possibly happen.

The only time we have made progress as a society in successfully housing people who do not have the money to pay market rates to own their own home has been when there have been ambitious, targeted, non-market strategies led by government. We have all benefited from those strategies. We have benefited by not having people live in our bus shelters. We have benefited by not having the effects of homelessness spill over into our emergency rooms and our prisons. We have benefited by not having to pay the cost of having people so destitute that they have nowhere else to turn. That is why it is so important that government gets back in the business of building housing.

This is not just about cities issuing permits to developers. There is such a need across an entire spectrum of types of housing that we absolutely need a plan and need non-market housing solutions. Whether those are co-ops, government owned and operated or rent-geared-to-income suites, we need to build far more housing.

Of course, it was not just in the nineties that this happened. The new leader of the Conservative Party was also part of the government that gave out operating grants. This was money the federal government gave to organizations that were running social housing so that people could pay rent that was a percentage of their income, usually between 25% and 30% of their income, whatever their income was. The federal government gave money to organizations that for 40 years successfully ran those operations and housed people who never could have afforded to live in rental housing at market rates. When this came up, the current leader of the Conservative Party was at the table when that government decided not to renew those operating grants.

In the last seven or more years now, unfortunately, the current Liberal government, despite running on a promise to do something about this, never really did. We have seen these affordable units come up, and the people who have been managing buildings for 40 years say they cannot manage on the model that they used to because they do not have the operating grants anymore. That is how they could offer rent at below market rates. Market rates are meant to cover costs and have some profit margin. If we want to have deeply affordable units that are actually geared to people's income, that money has to come from somewhere and it came from those operating grants.

The Conservative government of the day, with the member for Carleton sitting at the table, decided that it would not renew those operating grants, so these buildings are not sustainable now. They are going out on the market, and big developers are snatching them up, renovating the suites and evicting the tenants who were there before because they are jacking up the rent. That is how we end up with people camping out in bus shelters and setting up camp in parks. I beseech Canadians who are outraged to see that to carry their outrage past being mad about the problem.

That is what the new leader of the Conservative Party is selling. He is selling a lot of rage, and some of it is justified. I am mad about a lot of things, but we are not going to fix those things unless we focus on the solutions, and not try to pretend that every problem somehow comes from government when there are clearly a whole lot of actors in the economy with real power and real self-interested motives. They are not those we can trust to fix the problem, because they are deliberately blind to part of the problem.

Inflation is a great example, because as studies out there show, about 25% of the current inflation is actually attributable to increased profits. Price gouging is going on. It is a real thing. We would not know it listening to the member for Carleton. We would not know it listening to the government, which also, incidentally, is not acting the way it should. That is why we have been pushing it to take the tax on excess profits it has announced for banks and insurance companies and apply that to oil and gas companies, big box stores and others that profited hugely during the pandemic and continue to make record profits despite the hardship that so many Canadians are facing.

Doubling the GST tax credit is a way to try to get help to some of the people who really need it the most. We are talking about 12 million Canadians. That is a lot of people who receive the GST tax credit. They are going to see some kind of relief to help with these increases in costs. However, it is not going to be enough on its own, and it should have come a lot sooner.

This is something the New Democrats have been calling for, and for well over six months as inflation began to really take hold and we saw that it was not going to go away. We wanted a way to get help to people and also wanted a way to get help to people that would not drive more inflation. The problem, again, with the new Conservative leader is that any time we talk about having a plan to help people, he says it is just going to drive up inflation, and that is not true. There are certain ways the government could try to help and end up driving up inflation, but when we are serious about it and look at what is actually going on in the economy and at what the potential solutions are, there are ways. Doubling the GST tax credit is one of those ways.

This is why the New Democrats believed that was an important immediate step the government could take. Over six months later, here we are and the Liberals have finally seen reason and accepted that there is a need for action. However, as usual, it is a little slow, just as it was too slow for many seniors who were seeing their GIS clawed back. They had the audacity to accept the government at its word and apply to the CERB program they qualified for when they lost their jobs during the pandemic and needed the supplementary income. They then saw their incomes clawed back the following year.

We could see it from July 2020. It was coming like a slow train wreck. The government knew about it and did not act on it, and I think it knew as early as May 2021. Members will forgive me if I am wrong, as it was a little while ago and a lot of water has passed under the bridge, but I believe that to be the case. It was not until this year that they finally implemented a solution for that. Of course, we know that unfortunately some seniors took their lives in the meantime because they could not see a future for themselves and could not contemplate pitching a tent in a park and living there in the winter in Winnipeg in January.

This is a government that I think has been far too slow to act when it comes to helping people. However, there are solutions if we are intentional and if we do not rule out the very real and positive role that the public sector can play not just in times of need, but in structuring our economy so that we do not find ourselves in these kinds of crises, whether it is the housing crisis or other ones.

Employment insurance is something I love to talk about. Perhaps I will get a chance to do so during questions and answers. The government is reverting to the old EI system, even though that was always a disaster. The new system has been working better, although it is not great, but that is another place where the planning has not been put in place. Instead, we have actually gotten a lot of what the member for Carleton calls for, which is a hands-off attitude from the government and pretty well letting the market reign when it comes to these things. That is part of how we got here and that is why we need a different approach. This is a small down payment. Let us get it done quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the member was saying, particularly when he was talking about housing. A lot has been coming from the other side of the House on this, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about gatekeepers. He seems to focus a lot on these gatekeepers at the municipal level that are preventing development from happening, as if that is the golden ticket to the housing crisis we have now. I do not believe it is, and I am curious if the member can comment on that.

I would also like to hear the member's thoughts on co-operative housing. He mentioned it in his speech and offered it as one solution. It is a solution that, at least as I have seen in my riding, can be very effective at getting tenants and those who are in co-operatives to genuinely participate in the organization. It becomes a sense of pride and ownership to participate in that.

I wonder if he could comment on whether or not that is his preferred model of affordable housing when it is being built or if he envisions something different.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the points I was trying to make and I hope came across is that the member for Carleton has been a gatekeeper himself. When an important decision came up about maintaining affordable and social housing and continuing to make it available for people who needed it and who otherwise would be on the street, he chose to cut government funding to those very housing projects and allow big economic players to swoop in, buy those units, renovate and evict, or renovict, those tenants, jack up the rent and make a killing. That is part of the culture that has only accelerated in the pandemic years.

We know what this guy is like. We saw what he did when he had his hand on the lever. He decided to let those big players in to essentially dine out on the housing that had been built in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and make huge profits instead of preserving that housing for the people it was built for who actually needed it.

I would be happy to talk a little about co-operative housing another time. I see the Speaker is anxious to get to the next question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is just me being the keeper of the gate.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful for that very insightful speech from the NDP member, and here is why. NDP members are more excited to talk about our new Conservative leader than they are about anything else, including their relationship with the Liberal government. I think I know why. We are back from a summer around the riding, and I think folks in Elmwood—Transcona, people in Timmins and people on Vancouver Island sent NDP members a little message this summer to say they do not like the relationship they have with the Liberal government. Their policies are driving inflation, and what we are continuing to see is the same thing. If the member wants to talk about the new Conservative leader, I am happy to do so as well.

The question for the member, then, to put it on the record, is about our clear message this week. Payroll taxes are going to be going up, taking more off people's paycheques January 1. The carbon tax is going up April 1, and it is scheduled to triple. If the member wants to control inflation and wants to help people with their financial budgets, does he agree with us and with no new tax increases?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to talk about the new Conservative leader because I think that as people get to know him, they will come to feel about him as I do.

A clue was in the member's question, actually, when he talked about payroll taxes. What Canadians should know is that when the member says “payroll tax” what he means is their pension. When we are talking about increases to the Canada pension plan so that Canadians can have a decent retirement, the Conservatives call it a “payroll tax”.

People should know that somebody who thinks their pension is a payroll tax instead of what people actually work for and expect to bank on in their retirement is someone who is not in their corner and cannot be trusted to manage the affairs of the country. That is what people should know, and that is why I will keep talking about the new leader of the Conservative Party until everybody in Canada knows it.

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

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

I would also like to hear his thoughts on the government's bad habit of implementing a policy and then systematically forgetting to coordinate with Quebec. In particular, I would like to hear his thoughts on how a government can claim to govern for all Canadians while forgetting 23% of the population.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

One other great example of this is the whole issue of the increase to old age security.

Seniors really need an increase to their fixed pension benefits, especially these days. The government thinks that the rising costs putting serious pressure on the budgets of Canadians and seniors in Canada affect only seniors 75 and over. The members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP know that this is not true. All seniors across the country are under a lot of pressure, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, so the government needs to increase old age security for all seniors.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good moment for New Democrats when we can finally talk about the issues that most Canadians are already experiencing at the pumps or in the grocery stores, and that is corporate greed.

I heard the member speak a bit about that, which I would like him to elaborate on, but I will give some facts. Pasta has increased 30%, coffee 20%, oranges 16% and bread 16%, and there has been $3.5 billion in profits by big grocery stores. The NDP is the only party talking about the real cost of inflation, which is corporate greed.

Would the member please elaborate on how this cost of corporate greed is affecting Canadians in his riding?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the $3.5 billion is money that comes out of the pockets of Canadians, just as any tax paid to the government comes out of the pockets of Canadians. When we see that kind of extraordinary increase in profit that goes hand in hand with price increases, then we have to know that a significant amount of that price increase is not just to make up for increased supply costs, but in fact is companies taking advantage of a difficult situation in order to charge more for their products, and they are able to walk away with more of that profit because since the year 2000, the corporate income tax in Canada has dropped from 28% to 15%.

Another way that the Harper government, among others, has contributed to the real estate culture that is driving housing prices through the roof was by not doing anything about the capital gains exemption. It stands at 50% and it allows people to sell not just their stocks but also real estate beyond their primary residences and get a steep tax discount for doing their business through stocks and real estate instead of income, which is what most Canadians receive when they go to work. They get a salary or an hourly wage. However, if people are fortunate enough to be dealing in real estate or stocks, they actually get to pay 50% less tax, period, just by virtue of the way they do their own business. All of that has reduced government revenue, not just absolutely but as a share of GDP, between 2000 and now, and that is why we do not have the money we need in order to fund proper public services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's focus on the excess profits of the oil and gas sector.

I do not like using the term “excess profit” and I do not like using “windfall profit”. Let us be clear about what we are talking about: We are talking about immoral war profiteering. That is what we are seeing right now. If hon. members across the way want to laugh, let me refer to the business columnist in The Globe and Mail, Eric Reguly, who called this out in his August 8 column. He pointed out that the profits of oil and gas right now have nothing to do with business acumen and everything to do with war.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he agrees with the Parliamentary Budget Officer that by doubling from 15% to 30%, the additional $8 billion coming into the Canadian economy and the government coffers could help us take care of the poorest of the poor.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I absolutely believe that the additional profit those companies are making, as the member said, not because of their business acumen but by taking advantage of global circumstances in order to have a fig leaf as an excuse for why they are raising prices, should be taken back and invested in the things that we need in order to succeed as a society. We need housing. We need better health care. We need to tackle the climate crisis. We can create good jobs for people by doing that. We need money to pay for this. The money is out there. The government collects a lot less, in relative terms, than it used to, even 20 years ago, and it is time we start going back after that.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly, to the labour shortage that our country is facing, that is something that demands public policy solutions. I would note that, over the course of this first week back after the summer break, Conservatives have been talking about making sure that we are empowering new Canadians, removing the barriers they face, the gatekeepers, which come to many new Canadians when they come to Canada, many of whom are experienced and have significant amounts of education and training and whatnot, so that they can be employed in the professions they are trained in.

That is good public policy. That is compassionate. That is supporting new Canadians who want to contribute to Canadian society. What has been really, really troubling, and I hope that we can come together with the Bloc, and maybe the NDP can be convinced of this as well, to figure out a path forward, as the opposition controls the balance of power in the House.

What has been really disappointing is that when Conservatives talk about this, the Liberals seem to roll their eyes and laugh. It is very, very disappointing.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting, in terms of the lesson that the hon. colleague wanted to give about the left and the right. He mentioned the word “control”, saying that the left wants to control people's money, yet, ultimately, I would argue that with that money we want to support people. That is the difference between building larger institutions, building social programs and ensuring that there is equality within those social programs that goes to everybody.

Ultimately, with these corporate tax cuts that they are talking about, that goes to a very specific group of people. With respect to that corporate greed and not sharing that money, for it to go into offshore accounts and into their own pockets, how does the hon. member expect a government to govern and provide social programs if it does not have a fair tax policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question from the member for the NDP, the best way to make sure we have strong social programs is a prosperous economy, because when Canadians prosper, they are able to pay the taxes. When businesses prosper, they are able to pay taxes. When our nation prospers, that is the best way to ensure that we have a strong social safety net to protect those who need supports. I find it so unfortunate that the policies of the NDP specifically were devastating in my province of Alberta, and we are seeing the devastation that left-leaning policies are having on the economy and our nation. That needs to change.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by taking this opportunity to share my concern for my constituents and all Atlantic Canadians who are preparing for Hurricane Fiona’s landfall this weekend. Reports are suggesting that Hurricane Fiona could be Canada’s strongest storm ever, and the peak winds and rain may arrive early Saturday morning at high tide.

The arrival of this generational storm at high tide poses a strong risk for coastal communities throughout my riding and the province. I encourage everyone to take the advice of public safety officials, stay indoors and wait out the storm. Please monitor emergency service websites and social media pages, along with traditional media, for the latest updates on the storm.

This historic storm has the potential to cause massive destruction, and I am in constant contact with local municipal, provincial and federal government officials to ensure that all the support that my constituents may need is in place.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of my community. This bill provides a doubling of the GST rebate in the next payment cycle, and then the rebate will go back to its current levels. The one-time payment will vaporize with Liberal inflation, which will cost more than the benefit.

This bill is one that we should not even have to have a discussion on, and it should not even be before the House. The government is finally coming to grips with the fact that Canadians are struggling right now, but it is its endless spending and money printing that got us here. The half-trillion dollars of Liberal spending means all the money chasing limited goods pushes prices up.

This 40-year record inflation, not seen since Pierre Trudeau days, and for the same reasons, means life has become more expensive for Canadians trying to pay rent and buy food. Wages are not going up to match inflation, causing even more hardship, at least for now. We should not be in a place where one-time relief is needed.

The Liberals should never have caused this record-breaking inflation. While Liberal MPs enjoy their benefits and jet around the world having $3,000 meals on private jets, inflation is having real-world impacts on everyday Canadians. Surveys show that 24% of Canadians have reduced the groceries they buy, and food banks are reporting a 170% rise in customers.

Let us take Nancy, from the South Shore in my riding. She lives on disability and receives $895 a month. Due to the skyrocketing cost of home heating, her oil bill in the winter is $700 a month. If we add on the bare necessities, like food, Internet, phone, and gas for her car, it does not really leave anything at the end of the month, if she can even pay for those.

Nancy has to drive to Halifax from her home in rural Nova Scotia every three months for treatment because of her disability. However, ever since the price of gas shot up, it has become more difficult to afford to go into the city for her treatments.

Thanks to Liberal inflation, people like Nancy need to decide if they should be using the fuel in their car to pick up groceries or receive medical treatment. Nancy worked hard and faced an unfortunate setback. Like so many, she simply cannot keep up with inflation.

We can also talk about Cameron from my riding. His mother lives a mere 35 kilometres away, in rural Nova Scotia. Cameron needs to get to work, feed his family and put clothes on his kids’ backs. However, because of the high cost of fuel, Cameron cannot afford to visit his own mother, who is only 35 kilometres away.

It is stories like this that I and many of us in this place have heard over the past year. Regular, hard-working Canadians are facing impossible financial decisions simply due to government spending that has caused the price of everything to skyrocket.

The government’s proposals do little to solve the problem. The GST rebate will provide welcome relief that Conservatives support, but it will not address the real problem, which is that inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rate in 40 years.

Here is what Robert Kavcic, senior economist at the Bank of Montreal, had to say on this. He said:

We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment. But, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently inflationary.

There we have it. As the Liberals continue to spend, Canadians will continue to suffer.

While Conservatives welcome this much-needed support, the one-time cheque of $467, for a family of four that is eligible for this benefit, covers less than 40% of the Liberal inflation at the grocery store and does not begin to cover the rising costs of heat, gasoline or rent. The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table. Grocery prices are up almost 11%. More than 70% of families with children will not receive support. Liberal inflation is hitting these families hard while the Liberals ignore the issues.

The Conservatives have called for the Liberals to scour government spending to find savings to pay for these proposals to avoid adding to the costs. Let us start with axing the $25-million ArriveCAN app altogether, scrapping the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank and reducing the bloated bureaucracy. Departments like DFO have doubled their HR department in the last three years. There are more than 800 HR people in DFO alone now. I guess it needs this because the department has grown by 4,300 employees in only three years. While Canadians lost their jobs, DFO went on a job-hiring binge. That is why the new Conservative leader promises to introduce a pay-as-you-go law for the federal government. The plan will make sure that, if it wants to spend a dollar more, it has to find a dollar in savings.

If the Liberals were serious about making life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, another thing they would do is cancel the tripling of the carbon tax immediately. It is not just groceries, gas and home heating the government has raised taxes on. In fact, it is difficult to find anything that the current government has not raised taxes on.

During the pandemic, the Liberal government raised payroll taxes and alcohol taxes three times. On top of that, it removed key tax credits that families depended on, like the fitness and arts credits, along with public transit credits. Now it is raising the payroll taxes of EI and CPP. This means every Canadian will be taking home less money at the end of each month. These taxes are coming at the worst possible time for Canadian families who are struggling with rising costs.

Instead of freezing taxes, or better yet reducing them, the Liberal government is raising taxes on people who are struggling to make ends meet. This is causing structural inflation. High spending and increased taxes can only be fixed with structural changes to government spending, not with one-off measures.

The bill will provide a one-time temporary relief, but it does not have to be this way. It does not have to be this type of relief. The best solution is a permanent one, not a temporary one. It is to restrain government spending, which causes inflation, lower taxes and eliminate the tripling of the carbon tax.

The hurt inflicted on Canadians by the government must stop. Canadians cannot simply afford the current government anymore.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to send my best wishes to my colleague across the way and his constituency in advance of Hurricane Fiona. I hope his community is spared, that everyone stays safe and that they are able to avoid the worst of this very dangerous storm.

I would like to ask my colleague across the way this. He mentioned the supports the people in his riding have been asking for. With global inflation, which is a phenomenon around the world, will he be supporting Bill C-30?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the member's kind and caring words about the situation the people in my community and province face. As I am sure we all do in the House, I hope it is not as bad as it is projected to be.

With respect to this bill, absolutely I am supporting it. I support the idea. As I said, I wish it was not that we have to provide a one-time relief payment of $500 to people because of high inflation, and instead got at the root problem of the issue, which is higher inflation caused by excessive government spending and the printing of money by the Bank of Canada. Putting all of that money into the system means more money chasing fewer goods, which causes the price of everything to go up. That is what we should be dealing with. If we had dealt with that in the first place, there would be no need for this bill.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Our thoughts are with the people in his large riding who may be affected by the hurricane.

My question is about Bill C-30. We are well aware that inflation is still rising. It is affecting families, seniors and citizens. We know that, since July, the cost of goods and services in Canada has gone up by a shocking 7.6% compared to last year.

What will happen to our families who are living day to day? Usually people try to plan a few months ahead. These families are suffering as a result of inflation.

I would like to know what solutions you are proposing to make this more regulated and for things to move faster. We have been waiting a long time for these long-overdue measures from the current government.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the member for her thoughts on the hurricane that is approaching my province.

I think that is a great question. We have expressed, quite consistently, since the election last year in 2021, that one of the big things that we have to do in this chamber, in this House, to reduce the inflationary pressures on Canadians, is to deal with the taxes on fuel. The taxes on fuel come in the form of the HST and the carbon tax. In fact, the HST is a tax on top of the carbon tax, or one way or the other. I cannot keep straight which level of taxes the Liberals put on to tax other levels of Liberal taxes.

In this case, those massive taxes on fuel mean that everything we eat or buy has to be transported by truck. That forces the cost of transportation up, which forces the cost of everything up. The structural issue we need to deal with is to reduce taxes on fuel, eliminate the carbon tax on fuel and eliminate the carbon tax on home heating oil. We have to heat with oil from Saudi Arabia in my province, which will cost the average household $600 to $700 more a year. If those taxes are reduced that will deal with the permanent structural problem we have with inflation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always a little bit amazed that when the Conservatives are talking about inflationary pressures they neglect to talk about the profiteering that is going on with wealthy corporations, the war that is happening in Ukraine and the supply chain issues that have happened over the last two years. I suppose that if we use that same logic of making it attributable to one political party, in the U.K. we could call it Conservative inflation.

I am glad to hear that the member is supporting Bill C-30. As to Bill C-31, however, he talked about Liberal benefits. Why does he feel that Conservative MPs should have dental benefits but their constituents should not?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer to that is that eight out of 10 provinces already have a dental program for low-income people. In Ontario, they have one. In Nova Scotia, they have one for children under 15. The Liberals are duplicating provincial efforts and wasting taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30 and add my voice to this. I hope I am bringing a bit more light than heat, because I have been listening here for a while and there seems to be a lot of heat but I am not sure how much light there is in it.

I am splitting my time with my favourite colleague from Toronto—Danforth. I look forward to what she has to say and possibly look forward more to what she has to say than to what I have to say.

I also want to extend my concerns to our colleagues and the people of Nova Scotia and the Maritimes generally for what they are facing this weekend.

I cannot help but make the observation of dissonance between what this chamber, particularly on the Conservative side of things, says and the realities of climate change. How many once-in-a-lifetime events do we have to have every year before we realize that climate change is among us? We have been watching the floods in Pakistan. We have been watching the fires out in western Canada and watching California literally burn down. We express sympathy for that. We rush in as best we can to repair the damage after the fact. However, we fail to deal with the fundamental issue that is before us, which is the reality of climate change.

Therefore, the most practical solution is to apply a cost to the carbon that we all put in the air. We all put it into the air, yet we are extremely resistant to doing anything about it. I just want to make that as an observation. There is a dissonance between the way we talk about climate change and the climate emergency, and the willingness to actually make the sacrifices that are necessary in the form of some form of taxation or costing, in order to be able to mitigate the costs.

However, this is a discussion about Bill C-30. It is a bill that, it looks like, enjoys virtually unanimous support in the House. It is one of a suite of measures that the government is taking to fight inflation. I am kind of amused by that language: fighting inflation. I am sure inflation is just scared that the Government of Canada, the governments of the provinces or any government is fighting it, because inflation is what inflation is.

I have found that the members opposite are really quite elegant and eloquent in describing the problem, which is the high cost of groceries, the high cost of fuel, the high cost of rent, etc., and are very able to do that. I have heard it in my own riding. I have found that the answers that I give in my own riding do not resonate. When I say that it is partly due to Putin's war, the response of my constituents is “we do not care”. When I say it is difficulties with supply chains, my constituents say, “we do not care”. When it is having to do with various other causes, my constituents just do not care. The reality is that they want me, us, the government, to do something.

The government actually has a limited array of things that it can do to fight inflation. The first one, of course, is monetary policy. This is generally where everyone nods off who is not already asleep because monetary policy is possibly the most boring thing ever. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your getting an extra coffee before I rose to speak.

Monetary policy is essentially run by the Government of Canada. Years ago, the government made a very wise decision to take monetary policy out of this chamber, out of the political vicissitudes of the day, according to whatever the government or the Parliament of the day thought should be done with monetary policy, so that is run independently.

Some of us can criticize the Bank of Canada, and some members of the opposition in particular seem to be very enthusiastic about criticizing the operation of monetary policy. I could even make the argument that it started to raise interest rates a little slowly. However, it certainly has done what it can do to raise interest rates and restrict the supply of money.

Doing that, however, has consequences. The consequence is that it slows economic activity, and when we slow economic activity, we create unemployment. That is not a very good outcome for any of us, really. That is the consequence of monetary policy, and it needs to be moved forward.

The previous member talked about the government of Mr. Trudeau in the seventies. I was around in the seventies and remember stagflation. Stagflation meant having the worst of both world: inflation plus a high unemployment rate. Fortunately, we are not there, and possibly we have learned something about the application of monetary policy.

That is the first instrument any government has for dealing with this. It is being executed as well as it can be executed, and there has been some impact in cooling the real estate market.

The second array of the government's abilities is fiscal policy. Notwithstanding what some might say, this government is in relatively good shape with regard to debt-to-GDP ratio. I know we ran the debt-to-GDP ratio up during the COVID era, but there are no free lunches in this world and it will need to be dealt with.

At this point, a couple of things have been done well, one of which is buying long-term debt at low interest rates, so the cost of debt, at this point at least, is limited. We also have a reasonable unemployment rate at this point, so there is full employment and a government that has its fiscal house under control, although I would not say in order. There are challenges in managing that, but still, the fiscal situation is not bad for this country.

The third element of any government's approach to inflation is programs. That is part of what we are talking about with Bill C-30 and the temporary increase in the amount of HST refund for those who qualify, which is primarily people with an income of under $40,000 a year.

In my riding, the Canada child benefit is a huge benefit. It is $100 million a year going into my riding, affecting something in the order of 8,000 of families. The money goes to the people who actually need it the most. Economists can make the argument that we are putting money into the economy and are therefore creating our own level of inflationary pressures. There is some truth to that, but if it is a choice between rent and eating, I am sure my constituents appreciate the Canada child benefit, just as they appreciate the rent subsidy, the carbon rebate and the child care program that is going forward.

These are all programs that a government can put forward. It is a reasoned response to a very difficult situation largely caused from outside the country on a relatively small economy.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the inflation we are currently facing and this particular bill, Bill C-30, “We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment. But, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently...inflationary.” That is from a senior economist at the Bank of Montreal.

In budget 2022, the government identified that it had a policy review of billions of dollars of potential savings it could find and indicated it could pare that back. Would the member say that it would have been far more ideal for the Minister of Finance to have done the hard work over the summer to find savings within the Government of Canada's policy review and then bring this bill forward so that we are not actually increasing inflation? Does he agree with that, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I have been here for a long time, some might say too long, and every government that has ever been here in that time has always said there are savings to be found over here, over there, etc. What the hon. member is describing is very difficult work. It is an ongoing process, and I do anticipate that the Minister of Finance has been doing it.

On the first part of his question, I will quote an economist, an Atkinson fellow. I better not pronounce the name or I will mess it up. She wrote, “In truth the measures are so modest, [at] only $3.2 billion”. The impact on the economy is very modest.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are really glad to see the Liberals finally get on board with doubling the GST tax credit to help 11 million Canadians, something the NDP has been pushing hard for, but one thing we believe is that we need to go much further. We have seen oil and gas companies with record profits. Banks have record profits. Grocery store chains have record profits. Telecom and wireless companies have record profits. Fees on consumers are going up in all of those sectors.

We saw the Conservatives in Great Britain create an excess profit tax of 25% on big oil. We would never see that from the Conservatives here, because they are the lobbyists for the oil and gas companies.

Does my colleague believe we need to do more? I see the 1.5% increase on big banks and excess profit, but the Liberals are letting oil and gas off the hook. They are letting the big grocery store chains off the hook. They are letting wireless operators off the hook. Greedflation is taking over. Does my colleague agree that more needs to be done here?

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

Mr. Speaker, the benefit of being here a long time is that this seems to be a go-to position of my friends on the left.

There is an excess profits tax. All of these companies the member is complaining about, if they fall within the band of excess profits, will be taxed directly for that. I take note, as he did, of the excess profits tax for banks and insurance companies. There will be a gathering of revenues. I also take note that lately, primarily because of the low unemployment rate, the government's revenues have been quite robust, again speaking to the point that the government's management of its finances has been quite exemplary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have not been a member of the House for very long, but I am sure that if I had been, I would have been happy to have the member around for a long time with me.

I have a question about the timing of the introduction of Bill C-30. It is a relatively simple bill that is quite easy to implement. We already knew when the budget was tabled in the spring that inflation was going to be an issue.

Could this bill have been introduced earlier and provided help sooner to people who are struggling right now because of inflation?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course it could have been tabled earlier. Whether that would have been a wise tabling, I do not really know.

This is part of an array of initiatives on the part of the Government of Canada to mitigate the complaints we are all hearing. There is not a member in this House who has not heard about the inflationary pressures on our constituents, so as part of an entire array, I think this bill is a worthy initiative. The fiscal policy is being handled as well as it can be handled, with maybe a slow start on monetary policy. I still think the Bank of Canada is moving forward on that front as well.

When taken together, the array of measures and initiatives on the part of the government writ large is an appropriate response to a worldwide phenomenon on a relatively small economy, and hopefully—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to cut off the hon. member but we are out of time.

Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join the debate on Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act.

I have to say this is something that I know people in my community want to see. After a summer of having conversations with people back home in the community about what their needs are and what they are seeing, this is a chance to show that we are here and that we are responding to what their needs are in a very real way.

Inflation is a global phenomenon. We have heard this said a few times today. It is driven in large part by the lasting impacts of the pandemic. It has been amplified by China's COVID zero policies. It has also been amplified by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We can say all that, but I also agree with what the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, that those may be the causes, but people want to see action. This is where we get to say that we are taking that action to provide people with support.

Just so we have the backdrop, inflation at the moment is at about 7%. It is less than that of many of our peers, such as the United States, which is at 8.3%, the United Kingdom at 9.9% and Germany at 7.9%, but it still has a bite. Those are the numbers. It is still having a bite.

That is why our government now has the affordability plan, which is a suite of measures. It is new support here for 2022. It includes doubling the GST credit for six months. That is just one measure that is going to be able to make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. I will talk a little bit more about it as we go forward, but I want to also talk a bit about some of the backdrop to the work that we are doing generally. That is really important.

When I was first elected, one of the big pieces that I said I wanted to tackle was income inequality. I said it was something that was very important. I heard that. People in my community were raising it. We were talking about the additional measures that are happening today because of inflation. It builds on a suite of measures that we have been putting in place to build a stronger safety net. That is really important.

Among some of the things we talk about is the Canada child benefit. Originally, the same size of cheque went to anyone who had children. It had very limited impact. There were people who were really wealthy who were receiving it. People in need were not receiving the extra help that they needed.

I talk with people in my community about the Canada child benefit all the time. They tell me that it had an impact, because now it is means-tested, which means that people who have a greater need receive more money and the people who do not need that help do not receive it. That is okay, though, because they know that other people who are in great need in our community are getting that extra support. It puts thousands of dollars in the pockets of people to help feed their families.

In fact, studies in Toronto showed that it had a very real impact on food insecurity in families, that it was reducing food insecurity by significant numbers. It also had an impact, by Statistics Canada standards, on reducing poverty for children.

One of the other things that I was really excited about and wanted to accomplish when we were here was child care. Let us talk about raising a family. My kids are older teens now, but I had to put their names on a wait-list for day care before they were even born to get a spot in Toronto. By the way, that is still very much the case in Toronto. The cost was tremendous. People have to make a real decision about whether they can afford to have a child, whether they can afford to work. It has a disproportionate impact on women.

The newest pieces that we have heard over the past year from our government, with the agreements we have reached with all of the provinces and territories for a national child care plan, are part of that safety network. This means that more people are able to work, which is part of the issue when we are talking about inflation and the like. We are also talking about labour shortages being another challenge in there. Allowing more people to have access to work helps with the labour shortages.

I will go back to the bill a little more here. We know that no single country can solve all of the global problems that we have been talking about that are driving higher prices, but we are taking tangible steps to get inflation under control here in Canada, to make life more affordable for Canadians.

I want to recognize the central role of the Bank of Canada in addressing inflation. For more than three decades, it has been the bank's responsibility to tackle inflation here in Canada. Our government reaffirmed that central mandate last December. The bank has begun its work to bring inflation back to the target and we have seen that with the monetary decisions that have been made.

The Bank of Canada and private sector economists now expect inflation to ease toward 2%, which is the target over the next two years. That is where we are going, but we have this piece we are in right now. This bill is about where we are right now.

I want to talk about the affordability plans, like doubling the GST credit, which will support Canadians with the rising cost of living. This is a plan that is still very targeted. It is a fiscally responsible financial support for the Canadians who need it most. There is a particular emphasis on addressing the needs of Canadians with low incomes who are most exposed to inflation. It is also a way of making sure it has fiscal responsibility to it. This is not a blank cheque. This is a targeted means of supporting people who have the greatest needs.

What does this plan mean for Canadians this year? It means the doubling of the GST credit for six months. This would provide about $2.5 billion in additional targeted support this year to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.

It also means enhancing the Canada workers benefit to put up to an additional $2,400 into the pockets of families with low income starting this year. It means a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75 that began in July, which is providing up to $766 more for more than three million seniors this year.

It also means a $500 payment this year to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing through a one-time top-up through the Canada housing benefit. That is particularly important in a place like Toronto, where I live. Rent is tremendously expensive and having that extra support to put toward rent will have real tangible outcomes for people in my community.

I talked a bit about the child care fees and the child care plan. This is of personal interest to me. The long-term plan is to get to $10-a-day day care. This year, Canadians are going to see their child care fees reduced by 50% by the end of this year. That is a huge help for people living in communities like mine.

Additionally, the affordability plan includes dental care for Canadians earning less than $90,000 starting this year with hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 12. We know that dental care is a really important part of health care. I am really proud that we are going to be able to deliver that.

There is also the indexation to inflation of benefits like the Canada child benefit, which I talked about earlier. The fact that it is indexed means that each July, people will see an increase to their Canada child benefit. When I talked with anti-poverty advocates, that is one of the things they asked for. They wanted to make sure it was indexed so it would take into account the rising cost of living. That is something else that will help.

There are also increases to the guaranteed income supplement. Another thing that was requested in my community, and we are really excited to be able to deliver on it, is a federal minimum wage of $15 indexed to inflation, which makes it now $15.55 an hour.

I want to make sure that the message is out there that we recognize this is a difficult time and we are taking effective measures to support Canadians. More than that, this is not the only time we have done this. We have been there throughout and we are going to keep working to make sure there is a secure safety net that supports Canadians through all times.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government's revenues have been inflated by this inflationary environment and now the government is saying it will be returning some of the excess government revenues to taxpayers through these measures. However, I am very concerned that the underlying problem is not being dealt with here, the underlying problem being high inflation rates.

Can the member tell this House what exactly the government intends to do to help the Bank of Canada achieve its 2% inflation rate, or is it just hoping that the Bank of Canada can keep hiking interest rates and solve this problem all on its own?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us not underplay the role of the Bank of Canada in all of this. It has an important role in what it is doing, but I recognize that is not the only thing. We are working on other measures. For example, I mentioned at one point in my speech that we are working on things like helping to address labour shortages, which can be part of the challenge with supply chains. We see that with the supports that we have in skills development, but also in immigration.

There are definitely places where government plays a role in tandem with the work that is being done independently by the Bank of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say hello to the parliamentary secretary and thank her for her speech.

Her speech focused on inflation. In fact, Bill C-30 is a response to inflation. How will her government support developing countries that are dealing with serious inflation problems?

They are facing a food shortage and an energy crisis. International institutions encouraged these countries to take on massive debt to get through the pandemic. Their loans are for the most part in U.S. dollars, and the dollar's value is soaring at present because it serves as a safe haven. The same goes for imports, including food imports, which are negotiated in U.S. dollars. These countries are facing a real catastrophe, and there could be a cascade of bankruptcies.

What does her government plan to do to support them?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for this question, which touches on an important subject.

Today I talked about what we are doing in Canada, because this is a bill for Canadians. That is why I focused on that in my speech, but we certainly have a role to play internationally.

For example, during the pandemic, we helped other countries get access to vaccines. We continue to help other countries that need it. We come together when we work together, and we are stronger when we work together. We certainly have a role to play in that. Today I really wanted to talk about this bill and what we are doing here in Canada, but it is indeed another issue that we need to focus on as well.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are excited that we are finally getting relief to Canadians. For a long time we have been calling for the doubling of the GST credit and for a dental program so that children, seniors and families earning less than $90,000 get the help they need. People are having a difficult time paying their rent.

We hear the Conservatives constantly say that these programs are going to drive up inflation. In fact, economists are saying that this is going to have a very negligible impact actually when it comes to inflation and that these are the right measures to bring forward to help Canadians, something that New Democrats have been bringing forward.

I find it really ironic that it sounds like the Conservatives support the doubling of the GST credit now and somehow they believe that it would not now impact inflation. Does my colleague not find it quite bizarre that the Conservatives pick and choose when programs that help Canadians impact inflation?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting way to frame the question. I will say that we have been very much focused on the people in our communities and across the country on how to provide them with support. That is why it can be extremely disappointing when we see Conservatives vote quite regularly against measures that do help Canadians, like cutting taxes for the middle class, like the Canada child benefit which I mentioned.

I will take this as an olive branch moment. It is wonderful that the Conservatives seem to be supportive of what we are doing right now with the GST credit. I am hopeful they will be convinced that this is the right path for many more things that we are taking on.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Midnapore.

Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-30, I would like to send my dearest regards to our good friends and fellow Canadians across Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Now is the moment to prepare as the storm approaches. My thoughts and prayers are with our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada and in eastern Quebec.

No doubt, the GST rebate will provide some welcome relief, which Conservatives will support, but ultimately, fundamentally, this will not address the real problem. Inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rates in nearly 40 years. My goodness, that is almost as long as I have been on earth, and I will not give my age here, but it is certainly a long time.

I would say that, for longer than two years, Conservatives and our new leader, the member for Carleton, have tried as best as they could to warn the Prime Minister about the consequences of his actions and how much they hurt Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and the coasts are important to remember as we remark upon the events of today. Conservatives have called on the government to cancel all planned tax increases, including the payroll tax hikes planned for January 1, and as the shadow minister for employment, this piece is particularly important to me, along with the tax hikes on gas, groceries and home heating scheduled for April 1.

Another tax that has been an incredible burden on Canadians has been the carbon tax. If the Prime Minister was, in fact, serious about making life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, he would cancel the carbon tax immediately. These taxes are coming at the worst possible time for Canadian families who are already struggling with rising costs due to the Prime Minister's inflation. Instead of freezing taxes, the Prime Minister is raising them on people who are already struggling to make ends meet.

This credit will be a one-time help of $467, which, as I said, we welcome as a small piece of relief for families, but we must contrast that with the fact that the average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more a year to put food on the table, not to mention the rising costs of heat, gasoline and rent.

Grocery prices are up by 10.8%, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Fish is up by 10.4%, and perhaps it will be more after the dreadful weekend ahead of us. Butter is up 16.9%. Eggs are up 10.9%, and margarine is up by 37.5%. Bread, rolls and buns are up by 17.6%. Dry or fresh pasta is up by 32.4%. Fresh fruit is up by 13.2%. Oranges are up by 18.5%, and apples are up by 11.8%. Coffee is up by 14.2%. Soup is up by 19.6%. Lettuce is up by 12.4%, and potatoes, which will perhaps increase more after this weekend, are up by 10.9%.

Individuals without children who earn more than $49,200 and a family of four or a couple with two children who earn more than $58,500 will receive no benefits, yet these food prices will not change for them. The amount of the inflationary increases they will have to pay on their items will remain the same.

This will impact small businesses. I come from a small business family, so this issue is especially dear to me. Small business insolvencies, I am sure members know, are on the rise, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that owners of one in six businesses are considering closing their doors, with 62% of small businesses still carrying debt from the pandemic. The Liberals have created a risky environment for small business, and small businesses cannot afford to do business with these upcoming tax hikes, rising debt costs and staggering inflation numbers. Again, if the government is serious about small businesses surviving, recovering and growing in Canada, then it should immediately cancel all of the tax hikes that impact small businesses.

Members should not take my word for it. Many economists are talking about the Prime Minister's inflation bill. I will add that these are individuals from very credible institutions. I know that the government across the way certainly likes to turn up its nose at some Conservative-friendly institutes, such as the Fraser Institute. I heard snickering today. However, the Liberals cannot argue with these sources. One individual said:

It's always good to help people in need.

The problem is, what does that do for everyone else and does it really help [those on low incomes] to begin with? If we have high inflation and that high inflation continues, that assistance is not going to do very much to help anyone, including the recipients of that assistance. It is just not going to be enough, and while the Bank of Canada is doing quite a bit to bring down inflation [through increasing interest rates], the government really has not done much of anything.

I am sure the government would like to think it was the Fraser Institute that said that, but it was Professor Pavlov of Simon Fraser University, a very well-known university, known to not always have Conservative opinions. Therefore, we are certainly not alone in our criticism of how little, or how “much of anything”, to quote Professor Pavlov, the government has done in an effort to fight inflation.

Another professor from Simon Fraser University, Professor Herrenbrueck, said, “If you're asking will this put further pressure on inflation, I would say probably yes, it would have to”. That is again not a glowing recommendation of the government's action on inflation from professors from a very well-known university, which does not necessarily have a Conservative point of view.

I have another quote:

While there are times where fiscal largesse is just what the economy needs, these aren't such times. In a period of high inflation and excess demand, cutting taxes or handing out cheques can add fuel to the inflationary fire, and make the job of a central bank that's raising rates to cool demand all that more troublesome.

That quote was from the chief economist at CIBC. How can we argue against the chief economist of the CIBC? It would be almost impossible.

Here is another quote and, I would say, our support of this part of the bill follows in suit with this comment: “We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment. But, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently … inflationary.”

This is once again something our leader, the member for Carleton, has attempted to point out to the government on numerous occasions. That quote is from Robert Kavcic, the senior economist at the Bank of Montreal.

I have one final quote, which says, “it seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation.... Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

I would certainly say we are not all singing from the same songbook here when it comes to addressing the Canadian economy and inflation. That quote, to round out my quotes, is from Derek Holt, the vice-president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank.

We have three major banks here, CIBC, Bank of Montreal and Scotiabank, all indicating that the government has not done enough to stop inflationary measures for Canadians, which I outlined extensively with my food list and the way this is impacting people.

The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year just to put food on the table. I am a mom. I go grocery shopping. I see the prices in the grocery stores. I am even hesitant to think about how my family will budget for them. I am a very fortunate mother in a very fortunate family, so I worry for my constituents and I worry for Canadians.

Grocery prices are up by 10.8%, the highest rate since 1981. Across the board, food prices are up by 9.8%. As I said, while Conservatives welcome this much-needed support, this one-time cheque of $467 for families of four eligible for the benefit covers less than 40% of Trudeau's inflation at the grocery store alone and does not begin to cover the rising cost of heat, just as winter is coming, gasoline and rent.

More than 70% of families with children would not receive this support. Again, individuals without children earning more than $49,200, families of four earning more than $58,500 or couples with two children would receive no benefits.

In closing, we have had enough of the band-aids. This economy, this country, is on life support. We need solutions. Right now, all we have is this sad bill and “Justinflation”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a link between the high prices we see in the grocery store and the climate crisis.

Moms noticed this summer that ice cream went up, and one of the reasons was that vanilla beans come from Madagascar, which was hit with six cyclones this year. Hurricane Fiona is on its way to the Maritimes, which we have mentioned multiple times, and we are all thinking of people in the Maritimes.

I am originally a Cape Bretoner. We never had hurricanes in Nova Scotia until climate change. In 2003, for the first time, hurricane Juan made landfall as a full-force hurricane because the water had warmed up south of Nova Scotia. We had had hurricanes in the past, but they had cooled down before they hit Nova Scotia because the water was cooler.

There is a connection to what we are doing in burning fossil fuels. It is driving up prices in our grocery store and making us less safe in our homes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, like my leader and my Conservative colleagues, have a concern for the environment, without question. However, in this moment, we must think of our priorities. If people cannot eat, they cannot recycle.

The House resumed from September 23 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.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore has eight minutes and 30 seconds remaining in questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the fact that this is a legislation that the Conservative Party itself is going to be supporting, which is a positive thing. We have heard many different speeches coming from the Conservative Party. Earlier this morning, a member was talking about economic policy in terms of where we should be going as a government.

One of the things that were talked about a great deal was when the now leader of the Conservative Party talked about the importance of cryptocurrency. In talking about cryptocurrency, he actually encouraged Canadians to invest in cryptocurrency, believing that this was some way to fight inflation.

We all know that this particular recommendation caused many Canadians to lose a great deal of money, no doubt those who would have followed the advice of the leader.

Can the member indicate to us what she thinks in terms of Conservative policy? Was this a policy that the Conservative Party supported back then, or was this something that today's leader of the Conservative Party had as his own personal idea?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to offer my condolences to the victims of hurricane Fiona.

Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this time.

Let us talk about the economy over the last seven years. We had 8.1% inflation in June, $56.5 billion now with the latest measures from the government in budget 2022. Let us talk about all of the sectors that the government has destroyed, most of all the natural resources sector, and most recently, the fertilizer sector.

I am very insulted that the member would bring up a fleeting thought, an idea that was discussed during our leadership race. In my opinion, it is actually a tactic, a mechanism, and an effort to avoid the real problem here, which is also the band-aid solution we find in this bill, after a terrible job with the economy in the last seven years.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are really glad to see the Conservatives finally come on board and support an NDP initiative to get help to Canadians who need help right now.

Here we are, doubling the GST tax credit, something we have been pushing for months. Finally, just yesterday, the Conservatives announced that they are going to support us.

Here we are: We see rising gas prices and rising telecom fees, grocery store prices through the roof and fuel prices through the roof. We see record profits in the banking sector, oil and gas, the wireless sector and the grocery stores.

Does my colleague not agree that those companies should pay an excess profit tax like the Conservative Party put forward in Great Britain? They had the courage to charge a 25% excess profit tax, to give back to the people of Britain and help them with their energy costs.

Does my colleague not agree that they should pay their fair share?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. This is one area where we agree, but where my Conservative colleagues and I agree is on the fact that the NDP has helped the Liberals run this country and our economy into the ground.

This is the reason we have these high gas prices. This is the reason we have these high food prices. This is the reason we are encountering all of these problems: because of the member's question, which is also destroying all of our profitable sectors across the country.

Unfortunately, his point is the only thing we agree on, whereas my Conservative colleagues and I agree on all of these other factors I have mentioned, namely that he and his party are responsible for helping the Liberals run both this country and our economy into the ground.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is curious to me, because the NDP has not only been pushing for doubling the GST credit for over six months now. That help is desperately needed right now but was needed six months ago. We have also been pushing for dental care. We have been pushing for the rental housing benefit. We have been delivering for Canadians.

What have the Conservatives been doing, other than bluster and often spreading misinformation? It is difficult to see how the Conservatives can really look themselves in the mirror recently.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the only thing the New Democratic Party has been doing, in conjunction with the Liberals, is pushing up inflationary spending as a result of agreeing to everything the Liberals put in front of them.

I said this before and I will say it again. If the member wanted to see different changes, things that are not currently within these bills or other ideas she had, she should have done a better job in negotiating with the government when they came to their agreement. I find it very rich that she accuses us of inaction, when in fact it is her and her party that have done a fantastic job of raising inflationary spending and running this nation into the ground.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I note one of my colleagues just asked how Conservatives can look themselves in the eye. We are His Majesty's loyal opposition, while the NDP has become the government's loyal coalition.

When we look at the past three, four, five or six months with regard to the cost of living increase and all that, have there been any opportunities for the NDP to have supported what Conservatives are saying and really helped out Canadians?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is every single word every member of that party speaks is very hard to listen to, because they are actually working in coordination with the government in an effort both to bring down the economy of this nation and to wedge and divide and create space between Canadians.

I certainly wish the New Democratic Party would have supported us in many of the different opposition day bills we have put forward in the past. There is good news: It has an opportunity to do so again later this week, as we have two opposition day motions coming up. I really hope if the member across the way is so eager to work in concert with the Conservative Party, His Majesty's loyal opposition, that New Democrats will take the opportunity to do so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we take a look at inflation, something the member talks a great deal about, and compare Canada to the rest of the world, whether it is the United States, the United Kingdom or other G20 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on why she believes Canada is doing far better when it comes to inflation rates compared to the rest of the world. Why is that the case? Are the other countries that bad?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore has time for a brief answer, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government had the opportunity on many occasions to not spend the amount of money it did to raise inflationary spending, but it did not choose that. It chose to spend, and it is Canadians who will pay for it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my dear friend and colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre.

On behalf of all the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, I would like to send our deepest sentiments, thoughts and prayers to all Canadians living on the east coast who have been impacted by hurricane Fiona. This past summer my family and I drove out to the east coast, visiting P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It is truly a beautiful part of the country, consisting of beautiful Canadians who are just so kind and generous. We deeply enjoyed our time there.

Bill C-30 is our government's response to helping Canadians, and I would say helping the middle class and those working very hard to join it. It is a bill that provides direct relief to Canadians impacted by inflation, which we know is not only here today in Canada but across the world, particularly in developed countries. We have seen it.

We have gone through a period over the last few years with the COVID shock, which was considered an exogenous shock to our economy. Battling through that, helping Canadians and being there for Canadian businesses and Canadian citizens who were impacted, our economy literally came to a standstill during that period of time. Then, proceeding to the events we saw with the unjustified, barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia, we have seen the impacts of that. We have seen an impact on grain shipments throughout the world. We have seen an impact on prices of commodities and so forth, through our supply chain and on to inflation, which is impacting Canadians.

We know Canadians, particularly seniors, individuals on fixed incomes and working families, are impacted, and we are there to help. Fortunately, our government has been focused since 2015 on helping Canadians succeed, helping the middle class and helping those wishing to join the middle class. We have been strengthening the fundamental backbone of our economy, whether it has been working with the private sector unions or introducing the Canada child benefit, which we know is helping nine out of 10 families, unlike the prior program, which sent monthly, tax-free cheques to millionaires. Those types of programs have literally lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty, especially children, but also strengthened our middle class.

Our government also introduced two cuts. The first tax cut, for the middle class tax bracket, was asking the wealthiest 1% to pay a little more, which was the right thing to do. The second tax cut, which Canadians are still benefiting from, was raising the basic personal expenditure amount to $15,000. Again, this literally took people off the federal tax rolls, helping seniors, students and all Canadians, which is great to see.

Bill C-30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, is something I advocated for within our caucus for several months. It is something I truly believe in as an economist, as someone who participated in and worked in the financial markets, both domestically and internationally, for over 20 years of my life. The GST tax credit is a very effective instrument for assisting Canadians dealing with this specific issue. It is a significant policy tool that allows direct payments to Canadians who need it the most. I am very glad to see this legislation. I understand that His Majesty's loyal opposition is also in agreement with this legislation. I could be corrected if I am wrong, but that is what I read. I am glad to see other parties in the House suggesting the idea, and I am also glad to see other parties in the House supporting the idea.

This would support literally 11 million Canadians, giving $2.5 billion in direct payment to Canadians at a time when it is fundamentally needed. We have been dealing with inflationary pressures. We have seen the prices of food, rent and so forth, our daily necessities, rise. My family is very fortunate. We are raising three daughters, and I go to the grocery store. I see the prices. I fill the vehicles we have. My wife and I see the cost of gas.

I am glad to see our government act, demonstrating empathy to Canadians through a policy measure that we know will provide real relief to Canadians. Canadians do not really need to do anything, because the payments will arrive by year-end. I would ask people to please file their income tax returns. We know that when Canadians file their tax returns, they receive a ton of credits and benefits that ensure that not only they and their families have a good quality of life, but our seniors have a good, secure and dignified retirement.

As I said, under the GST credit, for example, a single mother with one child and an income of $30,000 will receive almost $400 for the July through December 2022 period and another $386.50, to be exact, for the January through June 2023 period. In total, in this manner, an individual would receive nearly $1,160 for the entire year through the GST credit. These are real funds helping real Canadians, those working hard day in, day out to put food on their tables and make sure their kids get to school. This is real assistance for Canadians at a time when we are dealing with persistent inflationary pressures in the interim.

As another example, under the present system, a couple with two children with an income of $35,000 will be receiving $467 for the July through December 2022 period and another $467 for the January through June 2023 period. Again, it is real assistance for those families. In total, they would receive $1,400 for this benefit year through the GST credit.

This is just another piece of legislation we brought forward that helps Canadians. I will repeat that it is helping the middle class and those working hard to join it, but also, very importantly, it is what I would call responsible leadership and a prudent fiscal picture. We have a AAA credit rating in Canada. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is on a declining trend. The provinces have come out with their fiscal picture, which is much improved. I know that under the stewardship of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada will maintain a strong fiscal balance sheet going into the future so there can be a prosperous future for all children and all families in this blessed country we call home.

With regard to our seniors, when we ran in the prior election, we campaigned on a 10% increase to old age security for seniors 75 and above, benefiting over 3.3 million seniors in Canada, like my parents and aunts and uncles, who are in B.C. these days. We did that; we fulfilled that promise. It was a promise made and a promise kept, as we say. When we think of the timing of that increase, which came in the month of June, seniors will receive up to $800 more in old age security payments. Again, that is real assistance. It is timely and dedicated to individuals who have built this country in the last few decades. I am very proud to serve the over 20,000 seniors in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

If we look at the Canada child benefit, which I cannot mention enough, it delivers over $60 million, the last time I had the numbers, to my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It assists hundreds of thousands of families in our country. It is another measure that we were able to provide. There is legislation on the table for the Canada dental benefit and the Canada housing benefit one-time top-up.

To reference the Canada dental benefit, I am a bit of a fiscal hawk. I believe in free markets and I believe in capitalism. I have worked on Bay Street and Wall Street, but I grew up in a small town in B.C. With regard to dental coverage, I have heard too many stories from seniors who come to my office. They do not have dental coverage and have to spend $1,000, $1,500 or $500 out of pocket when going to the dentist. They cannot afford it. It is literally the difference, on a monthly basis, between our seniors putting food on their tables or getting dental coverage. We are doing the right thing.

The same applies for children under 12 years old. I am so happy that I am part of a government that is moving this forward. If other parties want to make changes or suggest things, they can go ahead, but at the end of day, the premise is to help Canadian families and make sure they are getting ahead. That is most important.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one can be against apple pie. It is nice to have solutions to provide relief to seniors, families or low-income people. Nevertheless, these are temporary measures, like the dental insurance benefit or the housing support.

When we help, govern and talk we also have to think about future generations and bring in solutions that are permanent and predictable.

When will we see that here for housing and health?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I will say that these measures we put in place are there to assist Canadians. As we go longer term and look toward the fall economic statement or next year's budget, I know with regard to stakeholders and constituents in my riding that everything is about economic growth and raising the standard of living for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I will continue to push for the types of measures that spur job creation and investment and that increase productivity and lift productivity in this country. That translates, for an economist, into making sure that Canadians have a higher standard of living tomorrow versus today.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question comes from a place of ideology, fiscal responsibility and the overall big picture of where the Liberal government sees the future of Canadians and of helping those who are suffering most and those who definitely need relief.

How does the member across the way feel about the difference between investing in relief and investing in development, and about the sustainability of giving people an opportunity or a hand-up rather than a handout?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the record over the last seven years, in terms of job creation and the number of policies we put in place not only to have what is called inclusive growth but, most importantly, to grow our economy, the record speaks for itself.

On the productivity front, we need to put in place more measures to continue to spur investment. If we look at, for example, the auto sector here in the province of Ontario, as the member and I are both from the province of Ontario, we will see the number of record investments that have taken place. It is nearly $20 billion in investments. Today, I actually had an auto caucus meeting with representatives from that industry, which will create over 17,000 jobs by being a critical supplier within the battery supply chain as we transition to EVs.

Our government is working with industry. We are consulting and we are listening, and that is the direction we need to continue on.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the Liberal government has followed the NDP's lead with the GST tax credit, along with the Conservatives. I know my colleague kept going on about the Canada child benefit; however, here is the thing. His government is currently clawing back Canada child benefits from single mothers. Meanwhile, guess who they are not clawing money back from. Let us look at Galen Weston. Loblaws makes $5,100 an hour and saw record profits in the first quarter of 2022. At Loblaws, Galen Weston clawed back the pandemic pay of two dollars an hour for workers.

Since my colleague is so keen on the Canada child benefit, would his government consider going after big corporations instead of single mothers?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have introduced a number of measures that have lifted literally hundreds of thousands of single mothers and children, and families for that matter, out of poverty. We will still continue to introduce a number of measures.

We have also come out with a number of measures that have asked the wealthiest to pay more. There are measures here on the corporate income tax side for corporations. There was a series of PBO reports issued last week that refer to the revenues that would be collected from those tax measures. I encourage all members of the House to take a look at those PBO reports. They are quite interesting and quite detailed.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, which is an act to amend the Income Tax Act as it relates to the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax credits. It is a bill that is very much focused on targeted tax relief for the most deserving in our communities. However, before I speak to the bill, I just want to quickly state that as this is the first time I am speaking in the House since the summer recess ended, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. I hope all colleagues across the entire House had a good summer.

As we heard earlier during question period, the devastation caused by hurricane Fiona is top of mind for all of us. We have seen the kind of devastation that this particular storm has caused in Atlantic Canada and in eastern Quebec. Just like everyone, my thoughts are with everyone who has been impacted. There have been a couple of fatalities. We are thinking of the families that have been impacted.

I can assure the House, given my role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and in working with the minister, that the entire government, including the Prime Minister, was working hard, as soon as we knew this storm was coming our way, to make sure we were prepared. That involved working very closely with the provincial governments and local municipal governments so that all necessary steps were taken to prepare for this storm. Because of that, we are seeing all of the recovery efforts taking place at the moment.

Just this morning, very early, I was glad to join the Prime Minister and the member for Ottawa South in thanking some of the crews from Hydro Ottawa that were departing for Nova Scotia. We thanked them for what they were doing, as what Canadians always do is look after each other.

During the summer, like perhaps all members, I obviously spent a lot of time in my community. One of the things I always do is knock on doors during the summer months to talk to constituents of mine. I ask two very simple questions: “How can I help you?” and “What kinds of issues are of concern to you?”

It will not come as a surprise to any member, as I have been hearing this from members of all sides of the House, that the cost of living and the rate of inflation are big concerns for everyone. However, I also heard about the need for affordable child care. So many parents I spoke to asked me when $10-a-day child care was coming to their community, the one I represent right here in Ottawa Centre. They were very important conversations, and parents told me again and again that they could not wait for that program to be fully implemented. It is going to save them thousands of dollars, especially if they have more than one child.

This would be a tremendous savings, not to mention an opportunity for young children to socialize and take part in play-based learning. If we couple that with the full-day kindergarten that exists in Ontario for four- and five-year-olds, this is a really game-changing moment for children to thrive and for parents to be fully involved in the well-being of our economy by getting good jobs so they can grow in their professions. The savings are in the thousands of dollars for parents, and they are quite excited for the fact that this federal government, under our Prime Minister, has finally brought in a national child care and early learning system across the country.

However, that is only one measure that would help people with the cost of living. We need to make sure that inflation does not continue, although we are starting to see it abating and coming down. The inflation rate in Canada is perhaps one of the lowest compared with the rates of comparable G7 countries.

Regardless of that, we still need to take steps. We still need to take measures to find targeted reliefs for those who are the most marginalized in our society, the people who are on a low income, such as single mothers, who are working extremely hard every day, and I meet many people like that in my community of Ottawa Centre. We need to ensure that they have some targeted temporary relief, so they can live through this period.

That is why this particular legislation, Bill C-30, is so important. We know that this inflation is global in nature. There are many factors which have gone into and have caused this inflation. Canada is not immune to it.

Of course, the pandemic has had a big role to play. We have heard from other members that the unjustified, unwarranted war by Russia on Ukraine is another big reason that has caused this inflation.

We need, of course, to find a made-in-Canada solution to help people. That is why, as I said earlier, Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 are so important because they would provide those targeted reliefs for individuals.

In this case, under Bill C-30, we would double the GST tax credit for individuals and for families who have qualified for six months. That is real relief that would deliver about $2.5 billion in additional support to roughly 11 million Canadians. That is a very significant number of people who would benefit.

Just to give us an idea, if this legislation passes, and I hope all members will support this legislation, as I intend to do, from the period of July 2022 through June 2023, for the benefit year, eligible people would receive up to $467 for singles without children, $612 for married or common-law partners, $612 for single parents and $161 for each child under the age of 19. That would be quite a significant additional contribution to those individuals for them to work through this inflationary period. Of course, as we are starting to see from economic indicators, the inflation rate is starting to abate, and hopefully, that will continue to happen.

However, we are not stopping there. We would also be providing a one-time rent supplement of about $500, again to those who qualify for that kind of support, to ensure that they would be able to pay the extra costs they may be facing, and so they would not be at risk for homelessness. That is an important priority for our government, to ensure that people have access to affordable housing, and this particular support would be of significant benefit to them.

Lastly, a program initiative that is also much needed, which is very similar to our creating a national child care program, is what we are doing in creating a dental program for young people, to, again, make sure that young individuals, young Canadians, can have access to good dental care. It is essential to their health. By providing the support for those who are making, I believe, $90,000 or less, they would be able to get that dental care and be able to stay healthy.

This would only allow for them to live healthier lives, but it would also be yet more meaningful savings for individuals. We can really see a theme here of providing targeted supports that would really focus on people who need help and support the most. They also have huge benefits, whether it is getting good child care, improving one's health, or making sure that one does not become homeless.

This is going to help our economy. This is going to help all Canadians because our number one job as the government, and my focus as a member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, is to help build an economy that works for all Canadians.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member say that he hopes that inflation does not continue.

What is this government's plan? It is proposing a one-off payment in response to high inflation. I am glad that the government is now acknowledging high inflation. If this continues, is the plan a continued series of one-off payments?

What is the government's plan to address core inflation? I, too, agree and hope that inflation drops, but is this a long-term plan to address inflation?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to first thank my friend from across the way and his party for supporting Bill C-30. It is a very positive step for all Canadians, and hopefully all parties will be supporting this important piece of legislation.

Yes, we do hope the inflation will abate. That is why programs such as the child care and dental programs are important. It is because they are permanent in nature. They would continue to stay in place as national programs to help Canadians coast to coast to coast. That is an example of putting forward a program that is going to continue to help Canadians.

We will, of course, monitor how things are progressing. Hopefully we will get to the point where the economy stabilizes and continues to grow again, as we are seeing with one of the lowest unemployment rates ever in the history of Canada, so people can have good-paying jobs as they contribute to our economy and to society.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was happy to hear my colleague say that we need well-structured programs. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants. We want to have permanent, targeted, well-thought-out programs.

My concern is that, once again, it will be meted out sparingly. The funding will be scattered here and there. In my opinion, that is neither permanent nor well planned.

How does the member deal with all of that?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague's question.

If one looks at the kind of programs we are putting in place, taking child care as an example, it is not a program without a plan. It is a program that has been sought for a very long time by Canadians, especially Canadian women, who have argued that, for them to thrive economically, we need to make sure there is affordable child care available coast to coast to coast. By putting forward a well-thought-out plan, the way our government has done, we are ensuring there would be more participation, especially by women, in our society and in our economy. It would also ensure there is good early learning for our children.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, a report came out this summer showing that one in four Canadians are spending less than they need to on groceries. Many are going hungry. I want to thank him for his support for the critically important NDP initiatives, such as doubling the GST credit, ensuring we have a targeted support for people struggling to pay their rents and ensuring kids under 12 receive dental care as a first step toward a federal dental care program.

One thing I did not hear about in his speech, which is a crucial part of this equation when it comes to rising costs, is corporate greed. The Liberals, so far, have refused to put a windfall excess profits tax on corporations that are making record profits. Would the member support an excess profits tax, or are the Liberals going to keep protecting corporate profits while Canadians go hungry?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we work our very best when we work with each other, share ideas and put them in place. I am really happy to see our government is working well with the NDP and making sure we work in a collaborative way that is in the best interest of Canadians. I am happy to see the opposition supporting this important initiative as well, because that means Canadians are going to be first.

We have done a lot of work as part of this government to make sure our tax system supports those who are marginalized. That is why we increased taxes on the top 1% of earners, took all that windfall and gave a tax break to middle-class and low-income Canadians. That is the kind of progressive policy we will continue to put in place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock. Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-30, I do want to express my condolences and sympathies to all those suffering along the Atlantic seaboard. Even though they prepared as best they could, there have been some tragic results. I know that all Canadians are hoping for the very best, and for a very strong and quick recovery for all those affected.

Right now, Canada is facing the highest rate of inflation in 40 years. Canadians are struggling. They do not know what lies ahead or if it will get any easier. Grocery prices have risen at the fastest pace since 1981, soaring above 10% on average, with some items having risen over 30%. This means a typical family of four now spends over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table. That is if inflation does not rise further, something we have no guarantee of under the Liberal government.

Rising gas, heating and rent costs are weighing on the majority of Canadians, who are struggling to get from one paycheque to the other.

Rental increases are crippling income levels, with many having to take on second or third jobs to afford to pay their bills and travel to work. I have heard from many constituents who cannot afford the basic essentials anymore for themselves or their children.

If someone loses their rental accommodation for any reason, or needs to change location, they are hit with gouging increases. A single dad in my riding who has had full-time employment for years, and who is well regarded there, lost his basement suite because new owners wanted to take the space for themselves. He and his young son were literally priced out of other rental spaces that would be in any way similar. Friends are helping them out for now while he continues to try to find a home.

Bill C-30, which amends the goods and services tax credit, would double the amount for individuals and families with low and modest incomes. The GST credit would equal a one-time top-up for an additional $467 for singles without children with a net income of about $39,000, and up to $934 for a family of four. This one-time assistance measure, which Conservatives support as welcome tax relief for workers and families, does little to address the inflation-fuelled affordability crisis facing all Canadians. Individuals without children earning more than $49,200, or a couple with two children earning more than $58,500, would receive no benefits.

This benefit, which equates to $77 per month for a qualifying family of four, covers less than 40% of the Prime Minister's inflation at the grocery store alone, and does not begin to cover the rising costs of heat, gasoline and rent. More than 70% of families with children will not receive this support.

Housing, the cost of living crisis, homelessness and mental health concerns are top issues for B.C. residents. In 2021 alone, there were over 13 million visits to food banks across Canada. That is up 20%. Do the Liberals in the government, who often speak about the need to raise Canadian children out of poverty, realize that children represent over 30% of those food bank users in Canada?

Significantly, one in eight of those accessing food banks is employed. These services are a last resort for most, but they are becoming increasingly common for Canadians who have no other choice. Realistically, how could $77 a month address the burden of this level of desperation? It does not.

The core issue impacting every person in this country is rising inflation levels. Unlike tax-relief measures, such as the GST credit, the government is implementing inflationary proposals, such as tripling the carbon tax on April 1 and lowering every Canadians' paycheque by increasing the employment insurance and Canadian pension plan premiums on the first of January.

Under the previous Conservative government, CPP premiums remained stable and never increased. The fund was left actuarially sound for the next 75 years, and CPP benefits increased every year. Of course, working Canadians want to contribute to their retirements and will continue to do so, but this is not the time to increase those mandatory payments at source when buying power is shrinking more and more.

Tripling the carbon tax will mean that Canadians will again pay more for groceries and home heating and will add up to 37.57¢ per litre to the cost of gas. Yesterday, in the morning, in my riding of South Surrey—White Rock, regular gas prices were sitting at $2.339 a litre. The cost fell in the evening to a mere $2.289 per litre. At this rate, British Columbians will be paying close to three dollars per litre in no time at all.

My riding is a suburb of Vancouver with only one polytechnic university. White Rock is small and bordered beautifully by the water, but Surrey is growing rapidly. Infrastructure, however, has not yet fully caught up to the residential and industrial growth. In South Surrey, with no rapid transit and only bus lanes to get people in and out to Vancouver and beyond, or to get to the major universities in Burnaby and the UBC peninsula, these changes are burdensome and distressing to many who must drive to where they need to go. By the way, moving into Vancouver is not an option when a one-bedroom apartment now rents for $2,600 per month. The Liberals' one-time rent cheque would pay for about five to six days out of 365.

At a time when the national focus should be getting the country's deficit back under control, the government is clawing back at the drastically reduced disposable income of hard-working Canadians, instead of cutting unnecessary spending within the bureaucracy. This government's approach is very limited. It lacks long-term vision for economic recovery.

Many experts are raising alarm bells on the government's financial strategy. The heads of our major banks, including CIBC, the Bank of Montreal and Scotiabank are all warning that handing out cheques is inflationary and will make our economic woes worsen. Derek Holt, vice-president of Scotiabank, has stated, “Any belief that [these measures] will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

Inflation has been described as the cruellest tax of all by economists, because it hurts everyone by making all goods and services more expensive and it impacts low-income Canadians, seniors and students the most. Despite the relief that is offered by the government, high inflation crushes the ability for low-income Canadians to afford the basic necessities of life and curbs the ability of middle-income households to afford optional activities like sports or better quality food for their kids.

According to finance professor Andrey Pavlov at SFU's Beedie school of business, “If we have high inflation and that inflation continues, that assistance isn’t going to do very much to help anyone, including the recipients of that assistance. It’s just not going to be enough.”

Conservatives are advocating to bring inflation back under control. We need to do that. We need to stop inflationary spending. Conservatives understand monetary policy. We warned that inflation would naturally result from the Liberals' spending sprees, which continue. We will fight the government's tax hikes and inflationary deficits to protect Canadian paycheques and savings. We must do this because Canadians are not enjoying a higher standard of living, as I just heard. Canadians are hurting, and it is our job to transform hurt into hope.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I thank members on the other side for committing to support this measure.

When I was growing up, my mother received an HST refund and I know that it helped her with raising two boys with tight paycheques sometimes, and I am confident that this measure will do the same for families now.

My hon. colleague's speech wound around a bit and talked about how sending out cheques can contribute to inflation, so I would ask her specifically if she thinks that paying for things like dental care and rent for low-income Canadians will contribute to inflation.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, the way the Liberal government is going about it will absolutely add to inflation. One-time cheques on these measures do not a dental plan make. This is not a dental plan; this is a one-time payment. This is not a rent plan; it is a one-time payment. As I just mentioned, for someone paying $2,600 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, $500 does not go very far.

What needs to happens is that inflation needs to be dealt with, which is in itself a tax because it takes away from everyone. It is a regressive tax. It hurts low-income people the most. Liberals have to get the fiscal house of Canada in order. That would help people far more than one cheque.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech in which she mentioned food banks. I recently spoke with representatives of SOS Dépannage, which is located in Granby but serves the wider region.

What I am hearing about is the increase in demand. From August 2021 to August 2022, the demand for food assistance more than doubled. It is not just families who need it but also seniors, who are struggling because they are on a fixed income. One-time assistance is not the solution. Support and an increase in old age security is what is needed for all seniors, not just those aged 75 and over.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is where vision is needed, a vision of a Canada where we can be more independent, where we can count on each other and where our economy is robust and working for everybody. That is what we need.

We do not need further cheques to people. We need better paycheques for people. We need to get inflation under control because, as I mentioned in my speech, that is referred to as the cruellest tax of all. We cannot ignore it and economic policies must reflect a realistic look at the people hurting out there. The food bank situation is really atrocious in an affluent country like Canada. One of out eight Canadians is reporting putting water in milk for their kids. Canadians are reporting going without a meal. This is not the way Canada should look and the Liberals need to take it seriously.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we are on the eve of another climate emergency and what are the Conservatives doing? They are asking to get rid of the carbon tax. They are also asking for the government to help fund the climate emergency response, which I think we can all agree on. I, like my colleague, come from British Columbia where a carbon tax was brought in by the B.C. Liberals, supported by all political parties, because in British Columbia we understand the importance of fighting climate change.

Does my colleague think the federal government can override B.C.'s carbon tax and reverse legislation that has been put forward by the Province of British Columbia to do the right thing?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid my friend's question is very disingenuous because nobody has even been talking about going into provincial jurisdiction.

We are talking about a tripling of the federal carbon tax on April 1, at a time when it is already, at the level it is at now, hurting people right across the country and hurting farmers immeasurably. It needs to be taken into account with the overall economy. People cannot afford this lowering and lowering of their purchasing power. They have to be able to look after their families and live in dignity, and we should be helping them to do that by not tripling the carbon tax on April 1.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to add my voice to the discussion around Bill C-30.

In my lifetime, I have never experienced such inflationary times as these. We are living in immensely inflationary times, and I think this bill is an attempt to rectify that situation. We have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of living, the cost of food, the cost of fuel and the cost of housing. We have seen the average price of a house in Canada double over the last two years. Since the Prime Minister has become the Prime Minister, we have seen the price of housing double in this country. Over the last two years, we have seen butter, for example, come up 16%. Fuel has basically doubled in the last year. We are seeing how life is getting more and more expensive.

There are two ways to address this issue. First is to make more money in order to pay for the things that we need to pay for. Second is to try to lower the cost of living and the cost of everything that we have to pay for like housing and all of those things. The reality that will come into effect is that both of those things will happen. People will find ways to make more money and hopefully the government will work to reduce the cost of things or at least stem inflation.

We watched Joe Biden celebrate a little while ago. He said that inflation was flat for a particular month. He was wrong when he said that. In fact, inflation did not increase for a particular month. The percentage of inflation is how much one's money is being reduced in value every month. If the inflation rate is running at 5%, then our money is worth 5% less over that particular period of time. If that inflation rate stays at 5% and does not increase to 6%, that is not good news. It is just that, over the next same amount of time, that money will be worth 5% less instead of being worth 6% less. An inflation rate that is close to zero is what the goal of our whole system ought to be.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to move his phone, especially since it is near the microphone.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was just running my timer.

Nonetheless, there is the work that needs to be done to make life more affordable in Canada and to reduce the inflation rate. What kind of tools does the government have at its disposal to reduce the inflation rate? Taxation is a big part of the tools the government has. We, as Conservatives, are calling on the government to impose no new taxes.

On January 1 we will have a brand new tax increase on CPP and EI premiums. Happy new year. They are not optional fees for people to pay. If they were optional, the government may have been able to get away with not calling them taxes, but they will come off of people's paycheques whether they like it or not. They are taxes. That will reduce the amount of money people take home. They will make people's paycheques smaller, essentially. That will not help the inflation situation. It is not necessarily driving inflation, but it is one of the things that will not help people get over the inflation hump, so to speak.

On the other side of this, on April 1 the carbon tax will go up. The carbon tax is very much an inflationary tax. The carbon tax gets built into the cost of everything. Whether it is the shoes we wear, the food we eat, driving to work, driving the kids to school, or driving anywhere, the carbon tax is making all of that exponentially more expensive.

One thing that happens is that the carbon tax gets added into every part of the economy. When the raw products are taken out of the ground or the trees are taken out of the forest, the trucks that haul the trees to the lumber mill are paying for the carbon tax on their fuel. That cost gets built into the transportation costs of bringing the raw product out of the forest to the mill. The mill has to pay the carbon tax on the energy the mill uses to process that, so there is another added cost. As well, all of the packaging materials and supplies the mill needs are being shipped to that mill and they are paying the carbon tax on the products that are coming in, which is adding an increased cost.

Most of these mills are publicly traded. Our pension funds are probably invested in these particular companies. As everybody wants to retire, they want a return on their investment. They are looking for a nominal 10% return on their investments. There is an expectation that no matter what the costs are to that particular mill, they have to turn a profit, so they are going to increase the cost. When the carbon tax on all of these different things is added to their input, it raises the cost of their input. When they sell their products, lumber for example, they are going to have to increase the price of lumber in order to get the 10% return they are offering to their shareholders and people who have invested in the stock market. There is that dramatic increase.

As that carbon tax is bumped up, it cascades through the economy making it more expensive. I never even talked about that lumber getting delivered. The carbon tax will be charged as part of the costs of the truck driver for hauling it, including the diesel fuel needed for that particular truck hauling that lumber away from the mill to the local lumber yard. The local lumber yard is paying carbon tax on the natural gas they burn to keep the building warm. They are paying it on what they deliver. By the time someone gets that lumber delivered to their yard, there may not be a line on the invoice for that lumber that says “carbon tax” but rest assured that a significant amount of the cost of that two-by-four will be for carbon tax.

The increase in the carbon tax on April 1, in particular, could be paused by the government. The government could pause that increase instead of ramping it up to three times from what it currently is. It could pause it or it could remove the carbon tax. The removal of the carbon tax would have the dramatic effect of reducing the cost of things across the country. I think that currently the carbon tax on gasoline is 12¢ a litre.

Imagine if, in much the same way as Alberta has done, the provincial fuel tax was removed. When oil went over $90 a barrel, Alberta removed the fuel tax, causing a dramatic decrease in the price of fuel, which made life more affordable. People could get to work and their paycheques could go further. I hear more frequently from people who are having to ration their funds with respect to what they are buying and how they are heating their homes just so they can buy fuel for their pickup truck to make it to wherever they work.

The Conservatives are calling for two things. One is a reduction in, the removal of, or no increase to the carbon tax on April 1. This would help to stem the tide of inflation and dramatically improve the cost of things. Two is no increase to the payroll taxes. This would allow people's paycheques to pay for all the things they need.

The Conservatives are also calling on the government to quit borrowing money, quit raising taxes and quit raising inflation. We are calling on the government to stop borrowing money. We are calling for a one-to-one ratio. When the government wants to spend new money on a new program or a new initiative, it has to go back to the budget and find where there are some savings, whether that is from a program it is not interested in using anymore or it does not need. As society progresses, we see the government spend money and then, over time, the programs are not necessarily needed any longer. We are looking for that one-to-one savings, no new taxes, and for the government to balance the budget in the coming years.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was listening with interest to the hon. member across the way's perspective on inflation and the price on pollution. There is one thing that was going through my mind that maybe he can help me with, and that is the government's role in investing in triple bottom-line results.

In Guelph we had six housing projects, for 243 units, with $45 million invested by the federal government to help stimulate the housing supply. A lack of housing creates inflation, which we have been facing. We have created a circular food economy in Guelph, with an investment of $15 million, to reduce food insecurity so people have access to food.

Could the hon. member comment on the role the government plays in providing social, economic and environmental support for our citizens?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the member opposite obviously thinks like a Liberal. Every time there is a problem, the Liberals pull out the government's debit card and try to spend their way out of it. Now they are faced with a particular problem they cannot spend their way out of. More spending of government money will only cause more inflation. The very thing the government is trying to stop will not be solved by spending more money.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the North West Company is a for-profit corporation that benefits from the federal nutrition north program. In its last quarterly report it reported a 2.4% increase in sales to the tune of $579 million. Meanwhile, one in four indigenous Canadians lives in poverty. Does the member support corporate greed over indigenous poverty?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say that I am quite familiar with the northern stores and how the nutrition north program works. Once again, this proves that the government struggles to build programs that work.

Many times the free market is able to sort this stuff out better. I have heard of examples where Amazon Prime customers in northern Canada are able to get groceries cheaper than at their northern stores. Often those are the options.

I look forward to working with the member to try to come up with some solutions for the north for sure.

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

Madam Speaker, the statement of the hon. member that any more government spending leads to inflation is not borne out by many periods of time in this country and around the world.

Certainly some kinds of spending can fuel inflation. This is a very strange inflation we are experiencing. There are some real increases in price due to supply chain disruptions. There are real increases in price based on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are distortions based on the usual kind of inflation, which is generalized through the economy, where the Bank of Canada is raising its rates in order to slow it. There is a minuscule proportion of the overall inflation pressure from carbon pricing, and in any province where the federal backstop is at work, the money is returned to the citizens of that area.

To get a broader sense of that, some government spending is essential to help lower-income Canadians be able to cope with various pricing pressures.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the comment about helping citizens cope with the rising costs.

I would argue that working to reduce the cost of everyday items that are needed to live would help Canadians cope. A one-time $500 cheque that would be written would not increase that person's long-term paycheque and would not decrease the costs of natural gas, food and other things.

We need to work to ensure there is more of the things that we need and less government.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

It is a huge honour to rise today on Bill C-30, to help provide relief for the cost of living and double the GST tax credit. It is really great to finally hear that the Conservatives are getting on board with an NDP proposal, as well as the Liberals. We have been calling for this for a long time. Our leader has been calling for this since early in the year, to provide targeted relief to people who are being hit the hardest by inflation.

When I talk about inflation, we are seeing a 41-year high in the rise of inflation and the prices of groceries, 10.8% just in the last year. I was just at the Port Alberni Friendship Centre at the elders luncheon. I was talking to elders, and they were telling me how unaffordable it is getting. People are living in already compromised housing, in precarious situations, struggling to make ends meet, to pay for groceries or cell phone fees or to put gas in the tank. They are being hit from all sides.

When I talked about these measures, albeit small, it is so important to them to get this relief quickly. I am really hoping that the passage of this bill would happen quickly so that we could get support to those Canadians who receive the goods and services tax credit. The doubling of this credit would make a big difference for them in the next six months. In fact, it would help provide relief for over 12 million Canadians, which is a lot of people who are really feeling the pinch.

I talked about what people are feeling and the pressures they are feeling. I do not know why the Liberals took so long to do this, but they did come on board. They also provided an excess profit tax on the banking industry, which is going to generate about $6 billion over five years. That is really important, because it could help provide relief for Canadians who are struggling the most. However, the Liberals left the oil and gas sector off the hook. They left their friends in the wireless sector off the hook. They left their friends in the grocery store chains that are making massive profits off the hook.

In the meantime, these inflationary prices are being shouldered by everyday Canadians while these corporations are making record profits. If the Liberals had applied that excess profit tax to those other sectors, we would have had a lot more money to help everyday Canadians who are really experiencing difficult times due to increased inflation. Also, the Liberals have not addressed tax havens. We know the PBO said that this is costing about $25 billion in tax revenue every year. CEOs get a tax advantage on their wins ahead of everyday Canadians. They get tax preferences.

When I look to the Conservatives, they have not brought any new ideas to help provide relief to Canadians. Great Britain applied an excess profit tax on the oil and gas companies of 25%. Why do the Conservatives in Canada not do that? It is because we know they are the gatekeepers for the big corporations. They are here to protect the profits of shareholders and the big corporations.

We hear them talking about the increase to CPP and the increase to EI, and they call them payroll taxes. I was self-employed for 15 years. I ran a chamber of commerce for five years that was runner-up for chamber of the year in British Columbia. These are not taxes. These are actually investments in the employees. It is retirement security. In fact, it was Conservative premiers who were calling on Ottawa to ensure that we increase CPP contributions so that people could retire with dignity. People cannot afford to retire with what they are getting right now. It is leaving people vulnerable. These are not taxes. This is about employers matching their employees' contributions so that they have more money to retire on. These are deferred wages. The increase in EI is to ensure that if people lose their job or there is a disruption in the workplace, they are protected. It should be all of our parties looking after the employees.

When we talk about what we are trying to do, this is just one suite of benefits. We are bringing forward a dental care plan and we are glad to see the Liberals get on board, but it is disappointing to see Conservatives not supporting getting dental coverage to people.

I keep hearing from Conservatives that 70% of people across Canada are covered by a dental care plan. Penny just wrote to me from my riding and said, “I have to save for two to three years to cover my share of the dental cost for upper and lower dentures. Too many seniors cannot afford dentures, let alone dental repairs like root canals or major work they need badly. They are at the age where their teeth start falling out and dentures are needed.” Penny needs help.

I raised this here in the House. My friend Ted, in Parksville, has lost his teeth. He has one tooth hanging out of his mouth. He cannot eat. He has fallen into depression, and he has lost 40 pounds. He is saying this plan is going to make a big difference for him. When I raised it in this House, a Conservative MP said that Ted needs to go back to work. That is what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan alluded to. Ted is 77. It is not okay to send Ted back to work so he can put teeth in his mouth and eat. That is not okay.

Laura from Courtenay writes, “My daughter is in dire need of a root canal on her second last upper molar. She's in pain. The dentist has booked her in as soon as possible, August 16. However, for some reason, her medical needs are not covered under our health care and I'm not sure why this is as it's a medical emergency.” She talks about the threatening aspects of dental care. “Left untreated, dental abscesses can lead to serious complications, like a stroke, heart attack or life-threatening sepsis”, she says. “Why are my child's health care needs not being taken care of by our health care system?”

I think it is mighty rich when I hear Conservatives who have dental care coverage vote against a dental care plan. Is that not unbelievable? It is okay for them to have dental care coverage, but not for the most vulnerable.

Dermot, who lives in Qualicum Beach, says, “As my income is below the threshold you mentioned, I am retired and thus uninsured, this affects me. I know that you take pride in the role your party played in the introduction of medicare all those years ago.” New Democrats are proud because we need a health care system that is truly head to toe.

I am the critic for mental health and harm reduction for the federal NDP. We need mental health care. We need parity between physical and mental health. The Liberals promised $4.5 billion a year ago. They said they were going to work with the provinces so that people can get mental health care when they need it. People need mental health care, and they need it now. It is clogging up our health care system when people are in emergency rooms and actually need health care supports.

The federal Liberals have dropped the ball in terms of ensuring that we have a truly head-to-toe health care system. We are still waiting. We know they can do it. We saw them do it with child care. It took one year. They worked out a deal with the provinces. Why are they not doing that when it comes to mental health?

We need to help people when they need it. We are committed to that. Through COVID, it was increasing CERB to $2,000 and the wage subsidy from 10% to 75%. With the commercial rent assistance program, although it was boondoggled, New Democrats helped them fix it, as well as the paid sick leave, and now we are bringing in rent relief, dental care and the doubling of the GST tax credit. We are going to continue to show up with proposals to get help to Canadians now.

It takes forever to get the Liberals on board. There are many more things we can do. We know that the housing crisis is absolutely having a massive impact. The Conservatives love to throw mud at the Liberals in the doubling of house prices, but, guess what, on their watch, under Stephen Harper, housing prices doubled, too. They have gone up fourfold under these consecutive governments, making housing out of reach. We need non-market housing for people. Saying that the private sector is going to solve this problem is unrealistic. It has not happened anywhere in the world.

I am calling on all of us to work together to bring forward solutions and for members to work with us. New Democrats are here to work with them. We are glad to see all members in this House supporting this legislation. This is going to provide relief to 12 million Canadians. We can do more, we want to do more and we look forward to working with members.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way was a chamber of commerce executive. I was a chamber of commerce manager in Guelph for many years as well.

I hear the arguments being brought forth by the Conservative Party that everything must be a tax if it is an investment in Canadians, whether it is employment insurance, the Canada pension plan increase or pricing pollution, never mentioning the rebates that go back to Canadians, which they can keep as they reduce their carbon footprint.

Could the hon. member maybe comment on the business of supporting the entire person, including mental health, housing, food and economically?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know what happens when we do not look after people. If they do not have good dental care, they end up in the emergency room. If they do not have mental health supports, it drains the whole system. I was just with a first responder, a friend of mine who works for the Ottawa police department. He said that so much of his time is spent dealing with mental health issues. When we do not have a head-to-toe system or pharmacare, when people do not get the medicine they need, they get sick and end up in the health care system.

We have asked the Liberals to increase health care transfers as well, so that we can make sure that people get access to the health care support they need when they need it. We need a system, but we need to make sure that it is funded properly. We see corporations with runaway excess profits. We know we can invest in saving taxpayers' money not by straining the other systems, but by actually providing solutions in dealing with mental health, dealing with dental care and dealing with our health care system in a way that is more efficient and with the proper supports and investments. We know we can save taxpayers' money in the long run.

It is actually prudent and good fiscal policy to ensure that we have a head-to-toe system, and that is something we will continue to push for, especially when it comes to mental health. We need parity within physical and mental health. I tabled a motion around that, hoping that all parties in this House would support that motion.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is also from our home province of British Columbia. British Columbia has some of the highest gas and fuel prices. We know that Canadians who are living in rural and remote areas are disproportionately impacted by higher food prices and higher gas prices. We now know, from a recent report, that Canadians are paying higher prices in taxes than they do on food, gas and living costs for a roof over their head.

I do agree with our hon. colleague that we have to view mental health the same way we view physical health, but this is not a plan. As we have seen time and again with the government throwing money at something, while it is nice and will help, it is not a plan.

Does my hon. colleague agree that a real plan should be developed to help Canadians?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we have been calling for. The member voted against my bill to have a national strategy and a response to the toxic drug crisis in this country. The same member says we need a plan, but then he votes against the plan.

Of course we need investments, but the Conservatives are even afraid to go after the big oil and gas companies that are having record profits while fuel prices at the pump are skyrocketing. Where are the Conservatives? We see the Conservatives in Britain with 25% on excess profit, but these Conservatives do not have the courage to do that. They are going to leave it on the backs of workers and everyday people.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his speech and for his enthusiasm, which is palpable.

What bothers me a bit in this debate, however, is the feeling that several short-term gains are being made, but there is no overarching vision.

Of course, inflation is really high at the moment, which is taking a serious toll. However, high inflation is often followed by a depression and austerity. In that respect, temporary measures have temporary effects, but they can have long-term repercussions.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether the temporary measures are sufficient.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is not good enough. This is just temporary relief. I totally, wholeheartedly agree with my colleague that greedflation has taken over. We have corporate greed that has run out of control and inequality that is skyrocketing and needs to be addressed. One thing we agree with the Bloc on is that we need to make sure that we are closing those tax loopholes for the super wealthy and that large corporations pay their fair share. The Bloc, the NDP and the Greens have been calling for that, but the Liberals and the Conservatives are the gatekeepers for the super wealthy.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are speaking today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I represent the riding of Victoria, and the riding includes the homelands of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt first nations, as well as part of the territory of the W’SANEC nations. It feels especially important to recognize first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, as September 30 is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. In my community, there will be a South Island powwow hosted by the Songhees Nation, as well as the annual Orange Shirt Day event.

I want to mention two incredible people in my riding who have poured their time and energy into this important work: Eddy Charlie and Kristin Spray. Eddy is a residential school survivor and he has dedicated himself to this work. We all have a responsibility to support the work of indigenous people and to stand in solidarity with survivors and communities today and every day moving forward.

This afternoon, we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that would double the GST rebate. This morning, we debated Bill C-31, a bill that would deliver $500 in rental support to low-income Canadians and momentously support kids under 12 in accessing dental care as the first step in the creation of a national dental care program, the largest expansion of our health care in a generation.

I mention these two bills together because at a time when Canadians are struggling with the skyrocketing cost of living, they are two critical pieces that will help families, students, seniors and the people who need it most. These are Canadians who are scrambling to make rent who were already struggling to make ends meet. Some are going hungry because food has become the most relentlessly rising cost in household budgets. The usage of food banks has tripled in many places, which is why we have been pushing, in addition to the GST rebate, for a windfall profits tax on grocery stores and big box stores to put that money back into Canadians' pockets. People need help and they need it now.

When it comes to doubling the GST credit, we are talking about 11 million Canadians who would get some relief. However, that is not going to be enough on its own, and it should have come a lot sooner. In fact, over six months ago, our NDP team had been calling on the government to double the GST tax credit. We wanted a way to get help to people, and in a way that would not drive up inflation. We have relentlessly pushed for this, and now, finally, I am thrilled that we have successfully forced the Liberals to act to get help to 11 million Canadians who need it the most.

We also forced the Liberals to double the GST credit and are forcing the Liberals to deliver dental care and a rental housing benefit. The rental housing benefit would help 1.8 million low-income Canadians. This year's dental care benefit would be life-changing for many families, and it is only the first interim step in the development of a federal dental care program.

I hope we can take a moment to feel how big of a deal this is. Let us take a moment, because this will mean so much to families that right now cannot access the dental care they need. Families will no longer have to make the heartbreaking choice between paying for dental care for their kids and paying their rent or groceries. Parents have told me that being able to get dental care for their kids is going to be life-changing.

The most common surgery performed on preschool children in Canada is treatment of dental decay. Let that sink in for a moment. However, we are not stopping at kids under 12. We are going to get dental care for all Canadians who need it.

I have shared a lot of stories in the House from people I have met whose lives would be transformed by dental care, such as seniors who right now cannot chew their food, gig workers who miss days at work because of the excruciating pain and a person living with a disability who has been prescribed pain medication for her dental pain but cannot afford to get her teeth fixed. However, I want to share one more story, and I hope that my Conservative colleagues will listen closely.

I spoke to a teacher who, when she was starting out, got a part-time position as an educational assistant. At that time, she was working hard as a single mom with three young kids. She wanted to build her career, but as a part-time EA, she did not get benefits. She made the difficult choice to go on social assistance, to keep working and to have her entire monthly paycheque clawed back, because at least on social assistance she could access dental care for her kids.

If my Conservative colleagues claim to be fighting for single moms, dignity and respect, and if they claim to be fighting for small business owners, they should give them dental care. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech on dental care, noticeably avoided mentioning dental care even once. Is he afraid to because he knows Canadians want this?

He also said that politicians should have to follow the same rules as single mothers and small business owners. Well, I would ask him this: Does he believe that single mothers and small business owners should have the same benefits as politicians? I ask because as an MP, the Leader of the Opposition has been using publicly funded dental care for two decades, all while voting against giving dental care to single mothers and small business owners.

The Conservatives have been saying they want to turn hurt into hope. Well, people are hurting. They are dealing with—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Members will have a chance to ask questions and make comments. Now is absolutely not the time to do that, as they are interrupting the member while she is speaking.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been saying they want to turn hurt into hope. Well, people are hurting. They are dealing with the physical pain of dental decay and the lifelong damage of going without dental care. Parents are dealing with the horrible feeling of not being able to get care for their kids. As a parent, it brings me to tears thinking about how painful it would be not to be able to get my child the care she needs.

Too many Canadians end up in the emergency room because of dental problems that could have easily been prevented if they could afford routine dental care. I am glad that my Conservative colleagues will vote in favour of doubling the GST credit, but if the Conservatives truly want to turn hurt into hope, I suggest they vote for dental care.

Just last year, the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to vote against dental care. They are teaming up again to oppose a windfall profits tax on corporations that are making record profits and oil and gas companies that, in a climate emergency, are raking in billions. Families are playing by the rules, doing everything right, but they still cannot get ahead.

There are three approaches in the House: that of the Conservatives, who want to let families fend for themselves; that of the Liberals, who have to be forced into doing the right thing; and that of the NDP, who are going to continue to work for people.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on dental care. I know we are talking about two separate bills, but it is part of the larger affordability element. I would certainly agree with the member about the importance of dental care, particularly for those who are most vulnerable. The health impacts are very clear and I do not want to debate the merits of that.

My question is about the NDP, which seems to take the position that this should be administered by the Government of Canada. Of course, we are helping to provide payments, but what I have read in the news and what I can ascertain is that the NDP thinks this should be a federally administered program, notwithstanding that health is provincial jurisdiction.

I understand that we are providing interim payments until those agreements can be worked out, but outside of indigenous communities and perhaps military families, why does the NDP think this should be federally administered, as opposed to working with the provinces, which have connections on the ground, similar to what was done on child care?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct the record. Health care is a shared responsibility of the federal government and the provinces. We need to work together, which is part of the reason we will have an interim benefit. Families are going to get $600 this year and $600 next year. This means they can get their kids to the dentist to get dental care while we develop a more fulsome program. Ideally, the provinces will get on board, but no matter what, the government should be committed to ensuring that every Canadian can access dental care when they need it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is interesting, because when NDP members stand up, they like to point fingers at our new Conservative leader, when they only need to look within. I ask if the hon. member has priced out the bespoke suits or the Rolex watches the NDP leader wears. Perhaps they should be introspective and not throw stones when they live in glass houses.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sensing some defensiveness from my Conservative colleagues, and I get it. When their leader gets up and says that he is not going to support dental care and when their leader directs them to vote against this life-changing policy that would provide care for kids under 12, for kids who cannot access basic health care, well—

[Doherty]

Come up with a real plan.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George had an opportunity to ask a question. If he wants to ask another question, he should wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can understand why my Conservative colleagues are feeling defensive, as they are voting against dental care and at the same time receiving publicly funded dental care right now.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for her speech. However, I have a few concerns. First, when it comes to Bill C‑31, there is nothing about taking care of seniors' oral health. We are nowhere near that point.

In Quebec, children under the age of 10 are already covered by a plan. In fact, there is an election campaign under way in Quebec right now. Unions and community groups have shared their demands in the context of this election campaign that will determine the next government in the National Assembly. The elephant in the room for them is the lack of health transfers, which would allow Quebec and the provinces to implement and improve their dental care plans. We are not talking about national dental insurance, but about health transfers of up to 35%.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, we should be fighting for dental care and increased health transfers to the provinces. This is critically important, as we are in a health care crisis in emergency rooms. Staff are drowning. Of course we need to increase health transfers to the provinces now.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

For my first speech after the summer break, I would have liked to talk about something a bit more divisive, but, unfortunately, Bill C-30 is fairly uncontroversial. It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour, since it is a suggestion that was set out in all of our budget expectations. I hope that by saying this, I can avoid getting questions from the member for Winnipeg North in 10 minutes' time, since, at the end of the day, most of us agree on it.

The one small criticism I have for the Liberal Party is that the government was slow to act. As members will recall, the Deputy Prime Minister stood in front of the Empire Club in Toronto and simply repeated measures that were in the budget. The government could have taken inflation seriously long before now and taken quicker action. That was a little digression for the member for Winnipeg North. Now he will perhaps have something to say later.

I would like to quickly come back to inflation. In July, prices for goods and services in Canada rose by 7.6%. August brought a slight decrease, with inflation down to 7%. I am bringing this up again because I want to point out that this dip in inflation was primarily the result of a sharp drop in gasoline prices. That is why inflation slowed down.

Some of you may have seen, as I did, short videos of the Conservative leader constantly talking about people who are trying to buy groceries and their experiences. I understand where they are coming from, and I agree with the Conservative leader. Consumer prices have skyrocketed. Prices at bakeries have risen 15% in the last month. That is a substantial increase. It is the same for fresh fruit, with prices having risen by 13.2% compared to a year ago.

This is a developing phenomenon and we need to analyze it. Inflation is a complex economic situation. It will soon be clear where I am going with this. I have found a divisive element in something that is usually undisputed.

It is a complex economic situation. I think we need to be careful how we respond to inflation. We have to be careful because the type of inflation we are seeing right now is not necessarily one we have seen before. In the past, it was a demand-side issue. What we are seeing now is an issue on the supply side as pressures from labour costs and energy costs are creating a supply crisis that is causing this inflation.

Members will agree that there is no easy solution, especially when we take into consideration other causes that are completely out of our control, such as the war in Ukraine and global energy problems. It goes without saying that there is no easy solution. Why do I say that?

I am not an economist and I do not know much about the mechanics of macroeconomics and microeconomics, but I am very familiar with political dynamics. As such, I can talk about what we should not do to fight inflation. In my opinion, what we should not do to fight inflation is use the inflationary tensions we are currently seeing to advance a political agenda; to me that comes back to playing partisan politics on the backs of the most vulnerable. I do not believe that populist speeches that use the catchphrase “have more in their pockets” are appropriate for fighting inflation. Such speeches might unite the discontented, but they do little to offer solutions to those on the losing side of our economic system.

All this kind of populism does is distort things by offering piecemeal solutions, such as reducing the gas tax. In my opinion, over the past few months, we have been seeing a Conservative brand of populism stand up for the most vulnerable members of our society. I am not trying to pick a fight, but the Conservative Party does not exactly have a history of standing up for people disadvantaged by the economic system. Let me explain why I interpret the new Conservative leader's messaging as a kind of populism.

Here is a brief definition of populism.

The first thing to understand about populism is that many describe it as a divisive political strategy used to frame issues in black and white and pit people against one another. I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues for a while, and that seems to be their approach. How do they drive people apart? My Conservative colleagues say the only way to rein in inflation is to get rid of the carbon tax. That is an overly simplistic solution. I can see that others agree.

The second thing to understand about populism is that some individuals have been giving speeches and displaying behaviour employing a certain rhetoric that combines utopianism and demagoguery, pandering to the people and pitting them against the ruling elite. I am thinking of the member for Carleton's rhetoric and a few clips I saw online in which he talks about a mother having to water down milk because she can no longer afford to feed her family. The member for Carleton said that the central bank is to blame for this situation. The Conservatives want someone to blame for inflation, so they have chosen the head of the central bank and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have caused some harm, but the Conservatives are making the complex economic problem of inflation into a wedge issue.

The third thing to understand about populism is that it condemns institutions that, in the populist view, do not pay enough attention to people's aspirations. It portrays political opponents as elites with little regard for the ideas of the people and popular common sense. We also heard this sort of rhetoric from the leader of the official opposition when he talked about the Prime Minister being out of touch and about the head of the central bank.

I personally do not believe that this Conservative populism offers any proposals or solutions to fight inflation. Rather, I believe that it allows the Conservative Party to rally malcontents, those people on the losing end of our current economic system, to their banner without offering them any solutions. I will explain why I believe that the Conservative Party is not offering solutions.

What does the Conservatives' traditional economic rhetoric sound like? I have always seen it as being similar to the Washington consensus, which emerged from the liberal ideology espoused by the Chicago school of economics. What is this rhetoric? I have been here since 2019 and have frequently seen the member for Carleton champion the laissez-faire approach. He has done so on many occasions. What is the Chicago school's Washington consensus all about? It advocates the systematic liberalization of markets and interest rates. That is strangely similar to the proposals frequently put forward by the Conservative member for the full privatization of businesses and the deregulation of markets. It sounds a lot like the Conservatives' rhetoric. In particular, there is an emphasis on heavy budget cuts, especially by reducing public spending. We heard this often, even during the pandemic.

That is the Conservative Party's rhetoric. Does it structure government action in such a way as to help the most disadvantaged? I seriously doubt it.

Two very interesting books by Joseph Stiglitz tell us the complete opposite. By implementing such measures, in line with free-market liberalism—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I was listening closely to his speech but I see that his time has expired.

We will now go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, normally I try to engage in French, but I want to make sure my point is very clear.

I was interested in the member's conversation around supply-side economics. Of course the inflationary period we are seeing right now is somewhat unique. The Bank of Canada is increasing its benchmark borrowing rate to try to bring down demand.

Does he have certain concerns on the monetary policy side such that if this is a supply-side economic issue that is driving inflation, and notwithstanding the Bank of Canada is trying to do its job to bring down demand, it may prove difficult to actually quell inflation because this is a supply-side economic issue?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to respond to my colleague while I finish my speech, talk about what needs to be done and suggest some solutions.

I never thought I would have to say this, but I think that we need to protect the independence of the central bank. I never thought a politician would have to say this, but in light of the attacks by the member for Carleton, I have to say that we must indeed protect the independence of the central bank.

There is one thing I think is fundamental, however. We must reduce our dependence on oil, and the government should therefore probably stop giving such astronomical subsidies to this industry. My colleagues and I know that the oil and gas sector is an bottomless pit for public funds. In Canada alone, through Export Development Canada, or EDC, we are talking about an average of $14 billion a year.

If that money were reallocated in a better system with stronger social policies, we would have a much easier time tackling inflation.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, with reference to my hon. colleague across the way who was questioning as to whether this inflation was being driven more by supply-side economics, I wonder if the member could comment as to whether it is the supply side from economic goods or the supply of cash, in his opinion, that is driving this inflation.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not an economist. However, what I am hearing from economic experts is that we are in a supply crisis, not a demand crisis. Very high fuel prices and labour shortages are what got us into this supply crisis, which is driving inflation.

How can we address labour shortages?

The Bloc Québécois has made a number of proposals. Allowing seniors to return to work and providing incentives to do so is one way to address labour shortages and reduce the effects of population aging. Transferring certain powers to Quebec could help as well. Immigration is a total mess. Every riding is having issues with temporary foreign workers. We could alleviate labour shortages by making it easier for foreign workers to get here. We can take some of that off Ottawa's plate.

I think there are helpful measures that could be put in place. They would be more useful than simply saying that the head of the central bank should be fired.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the cost of living does not seem to be factored for my constituents in Nunavut in this bill. I wonder if the member could respond to the passing of this bill being absolutely necessary, especially with increases factored for remote and isolated communities. This is actually very necessary to make improvements for those more vulnerable communities.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. The government could do more. I would reiterate the solutions I mentioned earlier. If we stop dumping money down the bottomless fossil fuel well, maybe we will have more money to support our communities.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate Bill C‑30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding the temporary enhancement to the goods and services tax, or GST, credit.

Bill C‑30 is sponsored by the member for University—Rosedale, our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. This bill, which is at second reading in the House, would create a new refundable tax credit of $229 for a single person and $459 for a couple, with an extra $114 per dependent child. To be eligible for the full amount, however, people's income must be less than $39,826 in 2021.

If Bill C‑30 goes through quickly, eligible Quebeckers and Canadians may receive that tax credit in October. If not, it will not be available until November or December, which is very late. This measure, which will cost an estimated $2.5 billion, should help 11 million people. It is one tactic in the fight against inflation and the declining purchasing power of families in Quebec and Canada.

We in the Bloc Québécois have no problem supporting Bill C-30, but we wonder if the $39,826 threshold to receive the full benefits is not a bit low. Even with a slightly higher salary, home ownership is not possible in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada.

In the Laurentians, where my riding is located, the average rent for a three-bedroom apartment was $1,834 last spring. That is more than the cost of rent for the same type of apartment on the island of Montreal, and that is the number from six months ago.

Given that the cost of housing has risen twice as fast as the consumer price index, that number has already increased by $250 in only six months. When you do the math, it gets truly frightening. The bottom line is that an income threshold of $39,826 could almost be qualified as stingy.

There is more, however. The rebate decreases by 15 cents for every dollar earned above this threshold. This means that someone who earns $41,357 will not get a penny, even if the difference between the two amounts is quite small. I do understand, however, that 11 million people will benefit. We can assume that a lot of people will fall through the cracks, and that is what concerns me.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑30, but doubling the GST credit for six months will not magically allow Quebec seniors to get their heads above water.

Even before the surge of inflation, Canada was one of the industrialized countries where retirement income was the lowest compared to employment income for the same person. That number is 50.7% in Canada, compared to 57.6% in the OECD and 63% in Europe. Once we retire, we get half of what we earned when we were working. That is not a lot. It means that our seniors get poorer faster than those in other countries when they leave the workforce. Seniors need more than that to live in dignity. They need more than the $40 a month for six months that the government is currently offering them.

We in the Bloc Québécois have said it before, and we will say it again: We need keystone measures that are well thought out and properly targeted.

The first order of business would be to stop cutting the guaranteed income supplement payments of low-income seniors who received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year.

The second order of business would be to increase old age security by $110 a month, as soon as people reach 65 years of age. This is a measure the Bloc Québécois has been defending tooth and nail for the last two years.

Again, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑30, but I remind members that our party already asked for this measure six months ago in its budget expectations. It is nothing new and it did not just pop out of the heads of the Liberals. We helped inspire it. Six months is a long time when you do not know how you will make it to the end of the month or even the end of the week. Six months is a long time for the most vulnerable people and those who are in a financially precarious position. It is even worse if the refund is paid in December or October, as I said before.

Back home, singer-songwriter Dédé Fortin, who passed away unfortunately, summed it up best in his song The Answering Machine:Yesterday, I met a poor man
He lives on the street, doesn't own a thing
He told me something that I thought was really funny
Life is short, but it can be long at times

Let us think about that.

My colleagues opposite will say that inflation is dropping, that it was 8% in July and 7% in August. That is true, but the drop is due entirely to the price of gas, which fell 18.8% after reaching an all-time high in June. Everyone knows that Ottawa does not have a say in world oil prices, which are essentially set by the London and New York exchanges.

If we exclude gas, all other indices are rising, period. Baked goods have increased by 15.6%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; children's school supplies, 20%; housing, 15%; and the list goes on. These figures are from Statistics Canada, not me. In short, the Liberals can hardly be proud of and boast about this situation.

Increasing the GST credit is a good measure, but it is largely insufficient to make up for all the cost increases caused by the current surge in inflation. Right now, 41% of Quebeckers cannot make ends meet. I think it is urgent that the government step in in other areas to support them.

I would be remiss if I did not make the connection between the current relief measures and the situation of workers across the country. By country, I mean Quebec. Sadly, yesterday saw a return to the prepandemic EI system. Ottawa could have extended the measures it put in place during the pandemic. Ottawa could have delivered on its 2015 promise to reform EI. Ottawa did neither of those things. Now, six out of 10 workers are ineligible for benefits as of yesterday.

This is a government that gives with one hand and takes back with the other. How shameful. As Bloc Québécois members have said repeatedly, Ottawa has to deliver on its promise and completely overhaul the EI system. That would be, in my view, a truly meaningful measure, the kind we in the Bloc Québécois like to see. It would counter the negative impacts of the increased cost of living that is putting untenable pressure on Quebec workers. It would be far more effective than a $225 cheque. We in the Bloc Québécois hope that the government can understand that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being a senior myself, I was very interested in the comments of the hon. member across the way on supporting seniors. However, I am an employed senior, whereas we have many, many more seniors in our communities who are living on fixed incomes.

The Conservatives are saying we should not be looking at increasing CPP deductions and giving more support for seniors in the future through that means. Could the hon. member comment on the need for support for seniors on things like long-term care and areas that are normally under provincial jurisdiction?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just opened a huge door for me.

Indeed, I do not support the measures proposed by the Conservative side, should they have any. However, I would remind the House that seniors deserve much more than they are getting right now.

The Bloc believes it is simple. We think seniors' pensions should be increased by $110 a month, not at 75, but at 65. That is one thing.

I touched on the second thing during my speech. Honestly, this is something I learned while doing some reading to prepare for this debate. It is the difference between the amount seniors receive while working and the amount they receive after retirement. I was astounded to learn that there is such a large gap in Canada and in Quebec. Seniors become much poorer when they retire. I think we should reflect on that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up where my Liberal friend from Guelph left off in talking about seniors. The seniors in my riding have been telling me about how the rising cost of living is making it very difficult for them when they buy things like gas and groceries, as these are becoming more expensive. We know the carbon tax plays a roll in exacerbating those prices and driving up those costs even more.

Would my colleague agree with me that the government should look at scrapping the carbon tax or at least freezing the carbon tax increases in the new year to help seniors and those struggling to get by?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this issue is important to the Conservatives, but I am not at all convinced that it is the key. The carbon tax is seen differently in different parts of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois has found other solutions that would help seniors. That is the answer to the first part of my colleague's question. I am extremely grateful that a young fellow like him is so concerned about us older folks.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to see that everybody in this House supports an NDP proposal to double the GST tax credit to help people who have been the hardest hit by inflation.

We have been hearing from Conservatives all day about getting rid of the carbon tax, yet they forget to talk about taxing the oil and gas companies, which are having record profits while prices at the pump are skyrocketing. In Great Britain, the Conservative government there went and charged a 25% excess profit tax and gave it back to people who live there.

Does my colleague not agree that the Conservatives just do not want to talk about making the big oil corporations pay their fair share and taking a load off everyday taxpayers? Instead, they want to scrap a tax that is an investment. It goes back to eight out of 10 Canadians. We want to make sure polluters pay their fair share. Maybe my colleague can speak to that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that interesting question.

Indeed, there has been a lot of talk about oil in the House today and in the past few months. The Liberal government has and would have had a great opportunity. Obviously this would never come from the Conservatives, but the oil companies' profits soared over the past few months, and the Liberal government refused to take a cut.

That is too bad because we are not talking about millions of dollars, but billions of dollars. A small cut of that amount could easily help our seniors, the people who always lose out and get overlooked in our system.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Whitby. Tonight is the first time since June that I have formally risen in the House. I would like to begin by greeting my colleagues. I hope that they had a great vacation and summer in their ridings with their families and constituents.

We are here tonight to debate Bill C‑30 which, along with Bill C‑31, represents a suite of federal measures to make life more affordable for vulnerable Canadians.

I think it is very important to put things in context. Over the last couple of years, we have seen the effects of supply chains that have been rocked by the pandemic. There have been weather events. Of course, there is the war in Ukraine, caused by Russia's invasion. There are also demographic changes. The economy, in Canada and in other countries, is very robust. Unemployment is very low, and that creates inflation in Canada and around the world.

I quite appreciated my colleague from the Bloc Québécois who talked about this being a supply-side economic issue. That is what I was trying to mention, while working on my French. Hopefully it came through in the translation. The fact is that some of what we are seeing right now is being driven by factors outside of Canada that relate to the products, goods and services that we, as global citizens, want to make sure we have as Canadian consumers. It comes down to two issues when we are talking about economics and affordability. The Bank of Canada has a role with respect to monetary policy and setting interest rates and trying to keep inflation to around 2%, and the Government of Canada has a role and obligation that pairs with that, albeit independent of the Bank of Canada, which is around fiscal policy.

It was mentioned today in the House, I do not think it needs to be repeated, that it is important that all parliamentarians respect the independence of the Bank of Canada and its expertise in setting monetary policy. Our job here of course is to perhaps understand the implications of those decisions, but to really focus on the government's fiscal decision-making as it relates to and couples with monetary policy. We have seen the Bank of Canada acting. It has increased its benchmark rate, which is having an impact on Canadians. It is quelling some of that demand. In fact, we are looking at forecasts right now with respect to trying to avoid a recessionary period, not only in Canada but indeed around the world.

I had the opportunity to review the decision by the Federal Reserve in the United States, which has significantly increased its interest rate. There will be a conversation that will have to be had by the Bank of Canada as to whether or not it will match that rate, such that we are not impacted from a consumer side with respect to imports and the value of the American dollar going higher, or whether or not we will try to pair a bit lower, such that our exporters can benefit with respect to that economic side. It is complex. I do not pretend to stand here as a pure economic theorist, but those are the decisions that are being made right now.

That brings us to this conversation on affordability, because we know particularly vulnerable Canadians are struggling right now. During the pandemic, I will remind members, the government was there to help support the small businesses and individuals who were impacted the most. As we come out of COVID–19, as we move beyond the pandemic, it is also our responsibility to look at the situation and be able to rein in government spending.

I will go on record to say, and it has not really been talked about here in the House, particularly by His Majesty's loyal opposition, that the government is actually in a surplus situation. I think that is pertinent right now given the fact the government has had to spend. It would be unwise if the government had not stepped up and provided that economic support at that time of uncertainty to make sure our economy continued to function and move forward, and indeed to set the stage for where we are at right now.

Again, it is Keynesian economics at its core. Government spends during a down period when help is needed and then reins back spending when the economy is strong, as is happening right now.

How do we try to help support Canadians without impacting what the work of the Bank of Canada is doing right now, which is to try to bring down demand? I think it is what we doing right now with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, which are targeted measures. These are not just spending measures to provide support to all Canadians, including some of those who are the most wealthy. This is targeted to those who really need help the most.

I want to give some context to what we are talking about today. Bill C-30 proposes to double the GST credit for the next six months for both individuals and families who are eligible. That is about 11 million Canadians. The benefits at an individual level would be for someone without children with a household income under $49,000. That is what we are talking about in terms of providing very targeted support to those who need it. For those who have families, the example would be under $58,000. For anything above and beyond that, these individuals would not necessarily be eligible for these supports.

It is extremely important because it is targeting those who need the help without impacting Canada's fiscal position. This is a $2.5-billion spending measure. That is not insignificant, but it is not going to disrupt the work that the government is doing to rein in spending, at the same time understanding that the Bank of Canada has a mandate to bring down inflation. Indeed, in some contexts of what we hear His Majesty's loyal opposition calling for, the government is doing it. Perhaps that is not the narrative they want to spin, but we are working to do just that.

I just want to take a moment to speak about Bill C-31. I understand it is a different piece of legislation, but they are interconnected. This is about providing affordability measures on housing with a $500 housing benefit for those who are vulnerable, and providing dental care. We have heard great impassioned debate and context about how important this is. The dental care is for children who are under 12 whose household income is under $90,000 and who do not already have private insurance coverage.

Right now, conversations continue on how best to deliver this. I have asked some questions in the House of my NDP colleagues. There is merit in working out program delivery with the provinces, who are closest on the ground, who are going to be able to be there to help implement this and who would have relationships with dentists. I understand that right now this is an interim stop-gap measure to help provide that support to families.

I, as a parliamentarian, may disagree with the NDP assertion that this should be a federally administered program. Perhaps it should be for indigenous communities, where the Government of Canada shares a very close constitutional relationship. I think that is clear. Perhaps it should be for military families if there is a way to roll that out through the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Otherwise, this is best suited for the provincial level.

I recognize that my time is coming to a close this evening. What I way to say and what I want to reiterate is that I think these measures are reasonable, balanced and targeted to Canadians who need the support the most. We are in a situation where there is some level of economic uncertainty. Inflation is coming down. The Bank of Canada is doing its work. The government is responding in a responsible manner to not drive additional liquidity at a time when the Bank of Canada is reducing its interest rates accordingly.

I look forward to the conversation and the questions from my colleagues here tonight.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's speech, and I appreciated that I heard, twice, his use of the phrase “rein in spending”.

Earlier in this debate, I asked our colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre what the government's plan was going forward and whether it was more of a series of one-off payments in response to inflation. I am encouraged to hear the beginnings of a plan through the phrase of “rein in spending”.

Where would my hon. colleague envision this reining in of spending occurring?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the candour of my hon. colleague opposite. We have a great working relationship on the agriculture committee.

There is a whole host of areas I could look at it, but what I want to reference is when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tabled her budget. There is a plan to undertake about nine billion dollars' worth of spending efficiencies that the government is hoping to accomplish. There is probably a number of areas where that could happen. We are talking about a budget, in normal times, that would be around $370 billion. I do not want to label any one specific program; I think that would be inappropriate. However, I think there is room for the government to look at measures on efficiency and to rein in spending, similar to what we are asking Canadians to do. We know this has been a challenging time.

We are going to do that responsibly. I will certainly look forward to the government's work on that. I am happy to take any suggestions if the member has some areas where he thinks that is particularly important.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech, in which he touched on housing, which is an important issue. There is no denying that, with the ongoing inflationary crisis, this is one budget category that has grown even more than most.

Still, I am fascinated by the Liberal government's lack of long-term vision and its propensity for sending out cheques as a form of one-time support.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I have seniors getting in touch with me to say they cannot afford enough to eat. They see inflation driving grocery prices higher and higher. Does my colleague from Kings—Hants really think that a one-time cheque for $500 will help seniors? Would it not be better to consider a long-term solution such as increasing old age security significantly and permanently? I would like my colleague to comment on that, because I honestly do not think that $500 will do much for seniors.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The housing issue is a very complex one. The private sector and municipal and provincial governments must be part of the solution.

Of course, the Government of Canada has a role to play and must help by implementing certain programs. However, it is above all a municipal responsibility. To some extent, the problem is rooted in the labour shortage and the supply chain.

With respect to old age security, a $110-a-month increase for every senior is definitely possible. However, such a measure would cost $10 billion per year and per budget. I understand the importance of seniors, but at the same time, it is important to think about balancing the budget.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, inflation is the problem, and we can guess who is paying for it. It is everyday people, but there are solutions. For example, we have big corporations and CEOs who made record profits during the pandemic. They are not paying for it; that is a choice. Do members know who is paying for it? It is single parents getting clawbacks to their Canada child benefit. That is who is paying for it. It is everyday people who are paying more for bread. While Galen Weston, the CEO of Loblaws, makes $5,100 an hour, the cost of bread is going up.

I am wondering why the Liberal government does not go after all these greedy corporations that are making record profits. Stop making excuses and do not make everyday people pay. Make corporations finally pay their fair share.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep it short.

Those things are exactly what we did in this last budget, where we increased the expectations on banking and insurance companies. We expect them to able to contribute a bit more during this period, so we are doing some of the measures the member opposite is suggesting. I am not going to do it on a class warfare basis and criticize people who are successful. We certainly take the view on this side that we want to increase taxes on the super-rich in this country. That is what we have done, but we can do it in a tactful way instead of just attacking individuals and corporate entities across the board in this country.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, no. 1. As my colleague has already mentioned, inflation is a cause for concern for Canadians and their families. While inflation is definitely a global challenge, the impacts on Canadians are nonetheless real, which is why our government has been working directly to help Canadians have more money in their pockets.

Investments we have already made in the last two federal budgets and the new measures in today's legislation and in Bill C-31 will help Canadians who need it most. For example, the government's $12.1-billion affordability plan includes doubling the GST credit for six months, as proposed in Bill C-30. This would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support this year, to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit. It will also enhance the Canada workers benefit at a cost of $1.7 billion in new support for workers this year to put up to an additional $2,400 in the pockets of low-income families. As well, there is a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75, which will provide up to $766 more for seniors. That will impact over three million seniors this year alone.

The affordability plan includes cutting child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year. Looking at the child care fees in my riding, for example, families are paying $1,800 a month per child, at least. When we think about it, a 50% reduction in fees means $900 back in the pockets of those families, not to mention that in some families, both parents do not go back to work. This, in essence, supports families in having two incomes. That is almost a mortgage payment for many families.

Dental care is another one that we have added to the affordability plan for Canadian families earning less than $90,000 a year, starting this year with hundreds of thousands of children under 12. That will obviously be extended to seniors and individuals with disabilities in years to come.

We also must remember that our affordability plan has indexed to inflation a number of benefits, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. The federal minimum wage, which we increased to $15 an hour, is also indexed to inflation. Also, a $500 payment will go out to 1.8 million Canadian renters this year who are struggling with the cost of housing.

I want to talk a little bit about the housing challenges that we have experienced and some of the solutions. My colleagues have already eloquently touched on some of the aforementioned points, including the doubling of the GST credit for six months that is proposed in Bill C-30. I would like to focus my remaining time on the housing measures proposed in Bill C-31, introduced by the Minister of Health earlier this week, which is a critical component alongside Bill C-30 in making life more affordable for Canadians.

Our government believes that everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. However, that goal, one that was taken as a given for many previous generations, is increasingly out of reach for far too many Canadians. Young people cannot imagine being able to afford the house they grew up in. Rents in our major cities continue to climb, pushing people further and further away from where they work. All of this has an impact on our economy as well.

This is why Bill C-31 proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program that would consist of a tax-free payment of $500 to provide direct support to low-income renters. This payment would provide direct help to those most exposed to inflation and those who are experiencing housing affordability challenges. With the support of this House, the payment would be launched by the end of the year. Specifically, the benefit would be available to renters with adjusted net incomes below $35,000 for families, or $20,000 for individuals.

The Canada Revenue Agency would deliver the money through an attestation-based application process. In order to determine eligibility, the CRA would proceed with an up-front verification of the applicant's income, age and residency for tax purposes. Applicants would need to have filed their 2021 tax return and provide information and attest that they are paying at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent, are paying rent for their own primary residence in Canada, which would include the address of the rental property, the amount of rent paid in 2022, and the landlord's contact information, as well as consent to the CRA to verify their information to confirm eligibility.

It is estimated that 1.8 million low-income renters, including students, who are struggling with the cost of housing would be eligible for this new support. In total, the proposed funding will be $1.2 billion, of which $475 million were committed in budget 2022. This is a one-time top-up and would not reduce other federal income-tested benefits, such as the Canada workers benefit, the Canada child benefit, the GST credit and the guaranteed income supplement.

That is not to say this is our only measure that impacts people who are having affordability challenges with housing. The one-time top-up is part of a broader set of initiatives introduced in budget 2022, indeed probably the largest chapter in the federal budget, that will provide more than $9 billion to help make housing more affordable, including by alleviating the supply shortages that are one of the main causes of the high price of housing. These are measures that will put Canada on the path to double our housing construction over the next decade, including with a new multi-billion dollar housing accelerator fund.

Our government has a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable by both funding and incentivizing new builds and by helping people get into the housing market.

We are, for the first time, directly tying federal funding for infrastructure in transit to a requirement for municipalities to approve the building of more homes. All of this is in addition to further investments in affordable housing, the building of new social housing units and an additional investment of half a billion dollars to help end homelessness.

While no government can solve the challenges of affordability overnight, we remain hard at work to address the cost of living and set Canadians up for greater success. We are also doing so by laying the foundation for longer-term economic growth.

What today's legislation means is that most of our most vulnerable in Canada will receive more financial support now and, when combined with other measures in our affordability plan, will continue to receive new support in the weeks and months to come.

For the Canadians who need it most, this will make their lives more affordable exactly at the right time. This is why I strongly encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-30.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on something the hon. member mentioned right at the beginning and that is inflation being a global phenomenon. I am not going to dispute that. We know that other countries are facing inflation as well. The part the member forgot to share was the fact that, in the countries that are spending more money, we see the correlation of higher inflation such as we are experiencing here in Canada. The PBO has confirmed that. Economists across the country have confirmed that as well. The government continues to ignore the fact that higher government spending leads to higher inflation.

I am wondering if the member would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that this government spending has exacerbated inflation and has made it far worse than it ever had to be here in Canada.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear an hon. member on that side of the House acknowledge that inflation is indeed a global problem and also acknowledge that Canada fares much better than many of our peer countries around the world.

Inflation obviously is a challenging problem and the inflationary pressures that we see today are not just the result of pandemic relief spending, which I know the Conservatives continually purport in the House, falsely. I really believe that Canada has been set up for success. That is why we have seen the economic growth and the job recovery rate. In comparison to our peers, we are faring much better in terms of job recovery and growth. We really have set ourselves up to come out of the dip in our economy from the pandemic. We have seen a strong V-shaped recovery. Now we have to work on labour challenges, supply chain disruptions, etc.

I do not believe that these new affordability measures will increase inflation.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can be against sucre à la crème, but the proposed measures are temporary, whereas the problems are permanent.

My hon. colleague said earlier that housing construction would double. First, since there has been a shortage of 100,000 units per year since 2016, does that mean that, basically, 200,000 units will be built per year?

Second, will these still be $2,500 units with a 10% discount?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the affordable housing challenges we experience today are deeply problematic for many reasons, but what we have seen is a market dynamic that has exacerbated the problem that has been around for a while.

What our government has done in addition to the national housing strategy, which is a massive and sizable federal government investment in addressing that problem, is it has created greater supply and impacted over 500,000 Canadians already. As well, many rental construction projects have been happening. That plan has been rolling out with many investments across the country.

There are many examples of projects, such as the rapid housing initiative. On top of that, we have added a whole host of new measures to help curb foreign and domestic speculation in the marketplace, increase supply and really help people get into the housing market and purchase their first home.

There is a whole package of measures that are really designed to get at more of the root cause of the problem.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the New Democrats agree with this bill and the necessary relief it would provide for families. Unfortunately, the amount does not address both inflation and the high cost of living for my constituents. All the figures mentioned by the member are not reaching my constituents.

In what way will the government ensure all these investments he mentioned are reaching my constituents, who I am sure he agrees are in the most vulnerable communities he talks about?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree there are members of her community, my community and all our communities who are vulnerable.

As I think about this package of affordability measures, I think about a low-income family of, say, four people, which I think is, generally speaking, the average size of a Canadian family. It might be less than four, but let us just say four for the sake of it.

Low-wage workers are going to receive the workers benefit. There is a housing rental benefit of $500. There is the GST credit they will be able to take advantage of. There is dental care coming online for kids in low-income families. They are getting a 50% reduction in child care fees and the Canada child benefit is increasing at the rate of inflation.

I think there is quite a lot there to support the most vulnerable families across Canada.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora.

It is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West, but before I speak to this legislation, I would like to let everyone in Atlantic Canada know that my thoughts and prayers are with them as they recover from this weekend's terrible storm. This is a very difficult time, with property destruction, injuries and deaths, and I know that the rest of the country stands with them and is ready to help with whatever they need.

Over the summer, I spoke with many constituents, and all of them had the same message: The cost of living is really starting to hurt. Seniors are struggling to get by on their fixed incomes, and all Canadians know about the high cost of groceries, at least those of us who actually buy our own groceries. I am talking about grocery prices that are up by almost 11%. They are rising at the fastest pace in 40 years.

Here we are in week two of our new parliamentary session. Is the government talking about reducing the sky-high cost of food? Is the government talking about stopping planned payroll tax hikes, such as the tax increases on January 1 that will reduce everybody's paycheques, or the coming carbon tax price increase on April Fool's Day, which is all part of the government's plan to triple the carbon tax? Is this what we are debating? No, we are here debating legislation that was born out of a cynical coalition deal between the NDP and the Liberals to keep this tired, worn-out government in power.

Yes, this legislation, Bill C-30, is nothing more than a scheme cooked up between the NDP and the Liberals through a tweet. In the summer, the NDP leader tweeted that the Liberals needed to do this or that to count on his unwavering support, and the government responded with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Close to $5 billion will be used and, to use the words of the Minister of Tourism last week, thrown into the lake to keep the NDP happy.

I do not believe that government should be throwing money into the lake just to cling to power. Governments exist to serve the people who elected them, so today I have good news for Canadians. Our party just elected a new leader who is well versed in economics. He is a man who actually understands how economic works. For years, the member for Carleton warned the government about reckless and out-of-control spending. What was his simple message? It was that excessive government spending would lead to out-of-control inflation. Well, guess what? Inflation is rampant and out of control. Our new leader predicted this, and he has a solid plan to get us out of this. In the meantime, we will continue to hold our Prime Minister to account and work hard to encourage the government to implement sensible policy.

Let us talk about this piece of legislation, Bill C-30, and the financial implications for our treasury, our economy and, most importantly, the everyday taxpayer. The government is telling us that this a limited, one-time doubling of the GST rebate that will provide $467 for the average family. When I look at this, on the one hand, who will argue if the government wants to hand them some cash? It is welcomed relief coming at a difficult time, but it is a short-term band-aid that does not get to the heart of the problem. If we do not fix the core problem, then more band-aids will be proposed, and indeed we are already seeing this. While the government says that this is a one-time payment, it is openly admitting that this is just the start of a larger government spending package. Bill C-31, for example, includes more inflation boost in cash injections, which is just the start of an even bigger spending program that the health minister cannot even quantify right now.

I think this would be a good opportunity to take a moment to provide the government with some information that it may not understand. You see, I, like many of my Conservative colleagues, studied economics. Like me, many of my Conservative colleagues have run businesses and created jobs prior to being elected to this great House. I used sound economic principles to build my successful business and run my own household with the help of my wife. Together, we understood some of the basic economic principles and used them successfully. Now, we are not particularly smarter than other Canadians. In fact, I would suggest that most Canadians understand these basic economic principles and use them every day to manage their own households.

What are some of these basic principles? First, there is only so much money. It is not infinite. There is not a magic money tree in the backyard where we can go when we need a little extra cash. No, we have to make some hard choices. We have a limited amount of money with unlimited ways to spend it, and so we have to sit down together, weigh the pros and cons of the various options available and make a choice. Sometimes that choice is hard, especially right now. Families have to choose between inflated food prices and paying the carbon tax on their heating bills. These are not easy choices, but people are creative. Families find ways to scrimp and save in one area to allow them to spend in another. That is the first principle: Money is finite.

The next principle is that borrowing money is like playing with fire. It needs to be done very carefully and in a controlled manner. Yes, sometimes we need to borrow money, when we are borrowing to purchase a house, for example, but loan payments can become a heavy financial burden, especially when interest rates start to rise.

That is why most families understand that borrowing should be temporary, and that is why, when loans get paid off, there is great celebration in a household and a wonderful feeling of freedom. That is the second principle: borrow with caution. How does this apply to the government? If the government applied these two simple principles, the results would be lower taxes and lower debt. Canadians could keep more money in their pockets and have the freedom to spend their money the way they choose.

There is a third, very important principle I also want to talk about. This one is a larger principle that governments really must understand and apply. The third principle is the law of supply and demand. The easiest way to understand this is through an example. If consumers have $10, and the store has 10 loaves of bread, then consumers will pay $1 for each loaf of bread. If the government suddenly gives consumers an extra $10, but the amount of bread does not increase, now people are going to pay $2 for each loaf of bread. That is inflation. The loaf of bread goes from costing $1 to $2, and that is exactly what is happening in our country right now.

The government has dramatically boosted the amount of money available to people with $500 billion in the last two years. This extra money has bid up the price of everything that we buy. This extra money has also been tacked onto our national debt, resulting in increased interest payments, an obligation that our children's children will have to deal with long after we are gone from this place. When the Prime Minister famously said he does not think about economic policy, this simple principle is what he was not thinking about, and because he was not thinking, we are in this mess today.

I will once again remind everyone that the Conservative leader does understand these principles and is committed to running government according to them. What would it look like if Conservatives were in charge right now? Let us say we had a Conservative prime minister and that we believed the government should provide some GST tax relief to Canadians, just as Bill C-30 proposes. How would we implement something like this?

First, we would understand that money is finite and that we cannot go to a magic money tree to implement this bill. We would task our government to find savings somewhere else to pay for this new program. We would recognize that a new dollar spent would require a dollar to be saved somewhere else, just like all Canadians do every day when they manage their own households. If the government behaved like this, it would not take long for inflation to back down and for taxes to be reduced. That is how Conservatives would govern.

I need to come back to the topic of high prices and the rampant inflation that we see every day. There is a grocery store a few blocks down 22nd Street from my constituency office. The folks who shop there know that I sometimes set up shop there on the weekends to shake hands, hand out reusable grocery bags and chat with my constituents in Saskatoon West.

I also shop there for groceries with my wife Cheryl. Cheryl and I have seen our grocery bill go up every month. It may be salad ingredients, such as lettuce and tomatoes. It might be meat and potatoes, or the side dishes and vegetables. Bread, milk, coffee, pop and chips, everything, has increased in price, and prepackaged portions are decreasing. I am not just talking about small increases. Look at the cost of meat today versus two years ago. It has nearly doubled in price. That is 100% inflation.

Chicken breasts used to go for five in a package for $10. Now we only get three for that same price. They have cut the portion size to hide the cost increase. I was just at Costco this weekend, and I bought a four-pack of bacon. It used to cost $20, but now it costs $30. That is 50% more.

Is this a result of Russia invading Ukraine, as the Liberals would have us believe? How much beef, chicken, lettuce, potato chips, rice, coffee and milk do we get from Ukraine? It is probably zero. The vast majority is farmed and harvested right here in Canada. It is the domestic policy of the federal government, such as printing cash for the past two years, that has put Canada in this inflation period. It is domestic policies, such as the Bank of Canada aiding and abetting the federal government by underwriting its massive debt load instead of sticking to its mandate to control inflation. It is domestic policies, such as the carbon tax and fertilizer reductions, that are hurting our farmers and causing food prices to soar. It is domestic policies, such as ramming massive spending legislation through the House of Commons to keep a marriage of convenience with the NDP alive.

As I wrap up, I want to focus on accountability. Who is accountable for the $5 billion the government is shovelling out the door to satisfy a Twitter outburst from the NDP leader? I know it will not be the Liberals and the NDP, as they ram the legislation through Parliament and pat themselves on the back like they like to do. Instead, it will be the people of Saskatoon West left holding the bag through more inflation, higher taxes and reduced benefits from the government. Rodney Dangerfield famously said he gets no respect. Unfortunately for Canadians, from the Liberal government, they get no respect either.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to what the hon. member has said over the last 10 minutes. I just cannot get my head around something.

He says the increased interest rate is causing inflation to increase, which I disagree with. If the United States increases its interest rate and we do not follow, that would depreciate the Canadian dollar, which would be an even worse situation with the inflation here in Canada.

My question goes to his comment on national debt. He thinks the government spends so much money increasing the national debt. Almost in the same paragraph, he said that the government should cut taxes. If we cut taxes, we reduce our revenue for the government.

Would that not increase our national debt even more?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question demonstrates quite clearly the issue that we have here. The government does not really understand how economics work. All economists are willing and very happy to explain to people that, when governments add a lot of money to the economy, it causes inflation. It is a proven fact. It happens all the time, and we are seeing it right now.

Yes, it is happening in different countries around the world, but it gets worse depending on how the government impacts that. In Canada, our government has shovelled so much money into the economy that our inflation is actually hurting us more than it needs to. That is what we will be fixing with the new Conservative government.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the price of pretty much everything has gone up. We see it at the pumps, at the grocery store, in our rents, everywhere. The member is suggesting that we lower taxes to give taxpayers a break. I can understand how he feels. However, it is still a temporary measure. What permanent, predictable measure can he suggest to give taxpayers a break in the medium and long term?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good point. We need permanent solutions to these problems. A temporary tax relief measure like Bill C-30 is helpful, as I said, but it is only temporary.

What we need to do is get government out of the way of our economy. The government is stepping in and messing around with the economy in ways that cause businesses to make decisions differently than they would have before. It causes us to lose jobs. It causes our economy to not have the economic output that it should have, which affects everything from jobs to incomes, from paycheques to government revenue. This is the direction we need to go in. We need to help the government get out of the way so we can let our economy do what it is supposed to do, which is better for everyone, including government.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always laugh when I heard Conservatives talking about smaller governments and for the government to get out of the way.

We can look at Phoenix. They farmed out the payroll system for the government to save $70 million a year. It is going to cost $2.2 billion by the end of next year. They gutted Veterans Affairs by a third, which has led to a backlog of 50,000 applications for disabled veterans, the people who put their lives on the line. These are applications that are not even open yet. They were also a train wreck for DFO. They gutted DFO. I live in a coastal community. I know how that plays out.

One thing the member said in his speech was about those of us who buy our own groceries. What about the MPs who do not pay for their own dental care? It is unconscionable. Ted in my riding from Parksville is 77 years old. What did the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan say? He said that Ted should go back to work.

Ted's teeth have fallen out. Does this member believe Ted should go back to work?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a role to play in helping our economy in many ways. Helping people who are not able to work and who need a leg up is part of the whole role of government. It is one of the key roles of government.

However, governments cannot do that effectively when they are crippled financially. That is the whole point. We need to keep government out of the areas that it should not be in so it can excel and focus on the areas that it should be focusing on. When government is messing around in things it should not be in, it takes away the opportunity for government to help people like the one my colleague referenced.

We can have it both ways. The government needs to step aside, let the economy do its thing by generating the cash and the revenues, and then the government can turn around and do the things it needs to do, like defence and helping those who need help. We can accomplish this, and we will accomplish it.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the warm reception. It is an honour to be joining the debate today and to be the closer of business this afternoon before a very important discussion later this evening.

Of course, I want to thank my colleague from Saskatoon West for being so gracious as to split his time with me today. I appreciate his comments. I have to say, despite being a fan of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, he is actually a great guy and a valued colleague in this House.

This is also my first opportunity to rise for a speech in this new session of Parliament. I have to say that I am very excited to be back here at work. I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House had a very productive and restful summer and had some time to spend with their families and loved ones as well.

Given the recent circumstances that led to the debate we are having later this evening, I want to take the opportunity before I begin my remarks on Bill C-30 to say that my thoughts are with all those in Atlantic Canada right now. I know that everyone across the Kenora riding feels the same in the wake of the terrible destruction and the pain the recent storm has caused. I want to express my sympathies to everyone in Atlantic Canada right now and reiterate the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and Conservatives earlier today, when he said that our party stands ready and able to work with the government and assist it in any way we can to ensure its efforts are supported and that we are doing everything we can to support people who are suffering right now.

Going back to Bill C-30, the topic at hand, as I have a few more minutes here, I am honoured to be able to speak to this, given the incredible challenges that Canadians and those in northwestern Ontario are facing. It is really a shame to me that it has taken so long for us to get to this discussion, because I know the Conservatives were raising concerns about the cost of living many months ago, before we rose for the summer. Other members in other parties were doing the same as well, pleading with the current government to bring forward a plan to address the affordability crisis. However, throughout the summer the government sat on its hands and allowed the cost of living to continue to skyrocket, while many in my riding and across the country fell further behind.

This plan put forward in Bill C-30 to double the GST credit for six months is something I am certainly happy and relieved to see, but it is unfortunate that it took so long for the government to finally move forward on this. If we look at essential things like groceries, they are skyrocketing. Of course, every family needs to buy them. In fact, nearly a quarter of Canadians right now have cut back the amount of food they are able to buy, just to try to keep up with the rising prices. Butter is up 17%, eggs are up 11%, bread is up nearly 18% and fresh fruit is up over 13%, making it hard for every single person across this country to get by.

These issues are really exacerbated in the north, in my riding, in the municipalities I represent, and especially so in the remote northern first nations, where we can expect costs to be at least 1.5 times higher on a good day. This inflation that we are seeing, which has been driven by the government's reckless spending, is really having an impact on remote, rural and northern communities, like those I represent in northwestern Ontario. That is why we are continuing to see the rates of food insecurity continue to skyrocket. In fact, in some parts of northern Ontario, food insecurity rates are as high as 70%, and we have seen over the past few months more people turning to food banks and other areas of support because they are unable to get by.

Therefore, this support that we are talking about in Bill C-30 is certainly long overdue and welcome. We hope the government will continue to bring forward solutions such as this and continue to work with the opposition. As I said off the top, we have been advocating for supports such as this for quite some time now.

Speaking of time, that is probably it for me. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts, and I look forward to continuing this debate at the next opportunity.