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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Could we agree that this is not a conversation? An hon. member is making his speech, so members can make their comments during questions and comments. It is mutual.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not mind heckling at all. They can go ahead all they want. At the end of the day, the member for Abbotsford was right, and he knows he was right. Unfortunately there was a cost, but I will leave that for another day. I do respect that, on that particular occasion, he was right.

However, we have to remember that the Conservative leader was telling people that the governor of the Bank of Canada was bad and that he would fire him. He was advising Canadians to buy cryptocurrency. I wonder if any Conservative members of Parliament bought cryptocurrency. Could all those who bought cryptocurrency please put up a hand? After all, no doubt they would want to impress their leader. I wonder how many of them actually followed the advice of the member for Carleton, today's leader of the Conservative Party.

[An hon. member]

The member for Abbotsford did not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the carbon tax. What he did not acknowledge is that his government has a plan to triple, triple, triple the carbon tax. For Canadians who are already struggling with affordability, tripling down on this failed policy—

[Mark Gerretsen]

Triple, triple, triple.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is saying, “triple”. He is listening for once.

The Liberals are tripling down on this policy that has not achieved any kind of improvement in terms of the environment. The Liberals have not met any of their targets, and the member spoke about provincial premiers. We are seeing now that in some cases, like in the case of Newfoundland, we have premier who, as I understand it, is supportive of the principle of a carbon tax but very much opposed to the government's plan to increase it next year and to triple it going forward.

Will the member get up and either repudiate this tripling of the carbon tax policy or explain why his government is planning on tripling the burden on Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting yesterday, when the Conservative members would stand up during QP and say, “triple, triple, triple”. The thing that came across my mind was Tim Hortons' double-double.

I am wondering if someone was going through the drive-through and said, “I have an idea. Why do we not take Tim Hortons' double-double and say triple, triple, triple?” That is the only thing I can figure out. I have no idea where they get this “triple, triple, triple” thing from. Are they trying to hoodwink Canadians again on some stupid thought? It does not make sense.

The bottom line—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Can I remind members that interpreters have to deal with all the noise in the background? It is very hard for them, so can we allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish his answer to the hon. member?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what is very clear is that the climate deniers are prevailing once again in the Conservative Party of Canada. I think those voices that have been silenced need to come back and try to get a bit more common sense applied in the Conservative Party today.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg North will agree with the Bloc Québécois that fighting inflation and avoiding a recession calls for sustainable solutions and intelligent measures. One-size-fits-all is not the answer. We definitely have to steer clear of measures that, although popular, or even populist, are not real solutions.

Basically, we have to steer clear of measures designed primarily to win votes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have to put things into the perspective of time and how government ultimately evolves its policies. I, for one, have always advocated strongly on pharmacare. That is an area the government could expand in. I often talked about dental care also. I am very glad that we have been able to achieve what we have in Bill C-31 and I appreciate the contributions and support that the NDP has offered.

Canadians elected a minority government and they expect opposition and government members to work together. We have at least two political entities in the House that saw fit to come up with an idea of providing, as a first step, dental services to children under the age of 12. I see that as a positive thing, and I look forward to ongoing discussions on how we can help Canadians during this difficult time.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North that we need to get help to those who need it the most.

I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary. First, refundable tax credits like the GST are indexed annually to inflation. It could be indexed on a quarterly basis, as is the case for seniors' benefits already. Why is it not in this bill?

Second, on the disability benefit, last night on the floor of the House, I asked the parliamentary secretary for a timeline for when Bill C-22 would be brought back to the floor of the House. It has been up for debate once so far. This is about ensuring some trust from the disability community to follow through on the benefit. We are not seeing any demonstration of that yet. Can the parliamentary secretary commit to a date when Bill C-22 will be back for debate on the floor of the House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary and his team on their achievement in delivering over 10% inflation on food to Canadians, which I am sure his constituents are quite pleased with. Most of it is due to the carbon tax. It goes in everywhere on the logistics chain, and it is compounded and then passed on to consumers. However, it has not reduced our emissions in Canada.

In the U.S., there has been a reduction in emissions without a carbon tax. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can explain to the House how that could be possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I guess the hon. member wants to remain focused on the Conservative spin with respect to what he calls the carbon tax or the price on pollution. I just do not agree with the question at all.

One could do a comparison when he talks about a 10% increase on groceries. Canada is a vast country. Provinces, municipalities, the federal government: all of us have a contribution in terms of what our inflation rate is. Even the member for Abbotsford, I think, would have an appreciation of that fact. That is why we see variations of inflation rates across the different regions. To try to say that inflation is there only because of the price on pollution is just wrong. The member needs to get a more comprehensive understanding of why it is that we have inflation.

I would encourage him to recognize two quick points. The first is that inflation is around the world and Canada is doing relatively well. The second is that the government is doing whatever it can to try to make life affordable for all—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-30 today.

Yesterday, I was intrigued by a poll commissioned by the national accounting firm MNP. It found that half of B.C. residents are having a hard time saving money, and that 46% in the Ipsos poll feel that transportation is getting increasingly unaffordable. According to the poll, 40% of British Columbians also said that housing was a real and significant challenge. It does not take an Ipsos poll or an article in Business in Vancouver, though, to understand and to know what is going on in our province and the major challenges that people are facing right now.

Before I go on, I want to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, just the other night I stopped by for gas at the Centex station in Abbotsford. I had to fill up at $2.23 a litre to drive to the airport. I drive a RAV4, but even filling up a RAV4, at $150 for a tank of gas, is expensive.

Grocery costs at the Superstore in Abbotsford go up and up. I made a dinner for my family on Sunday night, and I noticed the price of the filet of fish, the Pacific cod that my family ate. It was over $30 for a piece of fish to feed my family that night. Fish is up 10.4%. This is a staple food in British Columbia, and it is getting harder and harder to buy. Butter and eggs are up 10% and 16% respectively. Margarine is up 37.5%; pasta, 32.5%; fresh fruit across the board, 13.2%; coffee, 14.2%; potatoes, 10.9%. I could go on, but the reality is that purchasing food is getting harder and harder for families.

In British Columbia we are also challenged with the highest housing costs in all of Canada and perhaps, in some cases, even many parts of North America. For the average home in British Columbia, the price today is over $918,000. Even for someone making a six-figure income today, the chances of being able to save up for that mortgage to cover the property transfer tax, the legal fees and everything involved in purchasing a house, are really, really slim. For a young father or mother working to support their family, even if they are making 100 grand, saving up for a townhouse or a condo is a challenge right now. Across the board, British Columbians are struggling.

Linda Paul from MNP noted in a survey that indeed, life is getting more unaffordable and Canadians are allocating more of their paycheques to cover these basic necessities that I just outlined. Further hikes and rising costs, she said, could drive more people into vulnerable positions.

That brings us to the bill before us today, Bill C-30, which amends the Income Tax Act in order to double the goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax credit for six months, increasing the credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year. Eligibility for the payment is based on one's income reported to CRA in the previous fiscal year. For my constituents and other Canadians who are listening, in July the government may send a letter outlining what credits people are eligible for. If someone's notice indicated that they should receive the GST tax credit, they can assume that the payment they get will be effectively double the amount on the notice. Payments are generally made three or four times a year. The next one is actually coming up tomorrow, on October 5; the second one is on January 5 and the third is on April 5. Assuming this bill passes both houses of Parliament, people can expect that on January 5 and April 5, their GST tax credit will be effectively doubled.

It is also important to know that the GST credit, generally across the board, if one were to look at the Government of Canada's schedule for payments, applies only to Canadians making below $60,000. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also outlined what, in general, this bill before us today would equate to for the average family. For a single person it would be $369, and for a single parent with a child it would be about $402 extra. Indeed, this measure is needed and welcomed by a lot of people struggling to get by with those basic costs, like groceries and gas, where more of their paycheques are going today.

I would be remiss if I did not outline that the government, despite putting this bill forward that the Conservatives will, in good faith, support, is not doing anything to address the structural challenges facing the Canadian economy today. The structural challenges are increasing. Businesses across Canada are having a harder and harder time planning for their future.

Small business insolvency is on the rise. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that one in six businesses are considering closing their doors, with 62% of small businesses still carrying debt from the pandemic. In other words, the environment that businesses and workers find themselves in today is risky. It is scary. As I did in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, I know MPs went and visited businesses this summer. If businesses in Liberal-held ridings are anything like businesses in the Fraser Canyon and the Fraser Valley, which I represent, Liberal members know that businesses are struggling and do not know what to do next.

I had the opportunity to visit the Lillooet Brewing Company, which is about to open up. Sam, one of the two owners, is an expert in the procurement of agricultural goods. He said that, first off, starting his business was the hardest thing he has ever done, but procuring the necessary equipment and products to make this business work is increasingly challenging, and he barely made it through. He talked about the ability to purchase an aluminum container in which the beer would be brewed. He talked about how the input costs for products like barley and malt are going through the roof. He does not know how he is going to solve all these problems.

I heard from the tourism industry in my riding, Fraser Valley RV and other similar businesses that are wondering whether they can plan to build and assemble more RVs with the increased input costs of equipment across the board. In many cases, when they combine the energy and property costs they are incurring, and the additional CPP and payroll taxes they will be paying on behalf of their employees, they are wondering whether they want to do business in Canada any longer. I heard the same thing from people at KMS Tools in Abbotsford, who said they were not going to invest in Canada anymore because they do not think the government has their back. All they want to do is create jobs and build things to help people live better lives, and they do not feel they can do that right now.

Therefore, my plea to the government today is very simple. It should look at the structural challenges facing the Canadian economy and the major supply chain issues that we need to address. It should look at how Canadian businesses are able to get the products they need to build things in Canada and address that problem. We are not going to get this done overnight, but what Canadian businesses want to hear is that the Government of Canada is going to make a reasonable effort to move in the right direction.

The second thing I would like to raise with respect to what the government could be doing right now relates to agriculture. I noted at the beginning of my speech that the price of margarine has gone up 37.5%. That is largely due to products like canola oil. Canada has an opportunity, especially given the global disruption in agricultural production, to stand behind Canadian farmers and play a role in addressing the food shortage. Canada wants to be a global player in food production, and the current government can help it get there if it gets out of the way and stops threatening farmers with future agricultural input costs on such things as fertilizer.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was listening carefully to the hon. member across the way and his description of what businesses are facing. The businesses in Guelph, across Canada and around the world are facing similar challenges around the supply side. What we have right now is supply-side inflation. The ability to bring product in or to have labour produce product is something all businesses are struggling with right now, which is causing the inflation we are seeing.

The bill before us today is targeted to help young families support their young children with dental care. It is a very targeted measure that will not add inflationary costs. Could the member reflect on how this targeted program, with the GST and dental credits, is not going to stimulate inflation, which is being caused by the problems he described?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I read Bill C-30 this morning and there is no mention of dental care in the legislation before us today. Bill C-30, as I outlined, is related to the GST credit. The bill before us today will effectively double the GST credit for Canadians who are eligible to receive it. Dental care is in another piece of legislation before this House, and it is not before Parliament today.

I acknowledge that the member outlined the structural challenges related to labour and supply chains. I would much rather see the government put forward a strategy to get goods moving in Canada and to give businesses the ability to produce things once again. That is not before the House, and those challenges will last much longer than six months, when the GST credit we are talking about today finishes.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his brilliant speech. I would like to know if he thinks this measure is fair for everyone or not.

If my colleague does think it is fair, could he tell me what fairness means to him?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the measure we are discussing in the House today does not affect everyone.

The bill before us today is for people only making under $60,000. The bill will apply only to Canadians who already qualified, as I outlined in my speech, for the GST credit. This bill applies only to Canadians who received a GST credit notice in July, when the government sent those letters out to Canadians.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. I know he is a real champion for his riding. I am glad he brought up craft breweries. My riding has more craft breweries per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

Can he comment on the craft brewers' proposal to restructure the excise tax on beer, so that it gives a break to these small craft breweries and, at the same time, stops the escalating cost of that tax?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Penticton in the South Okanagan for his excellent question. In fact, beer producers, liquor producers and wine producers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, like those in his riding, are wondering why, at this time of inflation, the government is putting yet an additional tax on them.

There are thousands upon thousands of people who work in these sectors in British Columbia. All they want to do is have an honest go, go to work and make a product that people love. The government is making it harder for them to do that. I am glad to see that the NDP stands with the Conservative Party in opposing this tax measure, which is punitive against our producers.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. I think he accurately portrayed the fear and anxiety that exist among not just businesses, but also residents. I travelled across the country this summer, and I talked to a lot of young people. They are neither fearful nor anxious; they are despondent.

How are young people in his riding feeling right now?

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

We will have a very brief answer from the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the weekend I had an opportunity to hang out with a number of young men at a sporting event in Abbotsford. I asked one of them whether the property he lived in was owned or rented. He said, “Thank you for even thinking that I would have the opportunity to buy a home. I don't think I ever will.” This was a young, educated man who was recently married, and he does not see an ability in his future to ever own a home. We need to restore, for these despondent young people, the dream of home ownership, the dream that their paycheque is going to get them far—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the inflation bill, because I am deeply concerned about the financial state of my constituents in Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

We all know that this piece of legislation will get passed, but in this place it is our job as His Majesty's loyal opposition to debate legislation and perhaps effect positive change to it when it goes to committee. The government has passed some extremely hurtful legislation since first being elected in 2015, when it had a budgetary surplus and inflation was at just 1.13%.

The carbon tax was implemented as a result of hurtful Liberal legislation. It is set to triple since its inception, and it will keep on going. By 2030, nearly 50¢ per litre of carbon tax will be placed on fuel, and then with HST on top of that, Canadians will pay almost 60¢ more per litre for fuel than they paid when they voted for sunny days and sunny ways.

When goods arrive at the back door of a grocery store and the invoice is given to the owner, there is a line at the bottom that says “fuel surcharge”, but it is not a one-time charge on our goods. Fuel price increases are passed on at every point in the logistics chain, so by the time goods reach the last link in the chain, the Canadian consumer, all of these inflationary fuel surcharges are reflected in the price of these goods. Therefore, we identify the carbon tax as a major cause of inflation to every single parent, every senior and every struggling family in Canada. By 2030, can members imagine the effect the carbon tax would have on Canadian households?

What we see here today is just the tip of the iceberg. Yesterday, the government voted against our motion to stop increasing the carbon tax. Instead of that, once again, the government ATM machine is ready to add more inflationary fuel to the fire.

I hear from my constituents on a daily basis that times were tough before, but now, after seven years of the government and its insatiable desire to spend, it is more difficult than ever to make ends meet.

I heard from Julie, a single mother of two who is now unable to enrol her children in soccer because it will cost too much to drive them to games and practices. Under the Liberal government, according to statistics, transportation costs have risen 10.3%. I heard from Mary, a senior who is one of the 24% of Canadians cutting back on the amount of food they are buying because they cannot keep up with the rising cost of groceries.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister this: When was the last time he stepped into a grocery store to purchase a week's worth of groceries? I do not actually believe the Prime Minister has ever bought groceries, so let me help to open his eyes. Groceries, some of the basic necessities of life, are up by 10.8%, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Fish is up 10.4%. Butter is up 16.9%. Eggs are up by 10.9%. God help us if we break one. Margarine is up by 37.5%. Bread, rolls and buns are 7.6.% more expensive than last year. Dry and fresh pasta is up 32.4%. Fresh fruit is up 13.2%.

I heard from Kyle. Although he received a slight wage increase, he still cannot keep up. Why? It is because although on average wages have increased by 5.4%, inflation has increased by 7%. It does not take a doctorate in mathematics to know those numbers are not sustainable.

However, wait. Not all is lost. The Liberals have come up with a plan. They are going to help combat inflation caused by overspending by spending more. Do not misinterpret my criticism of their plan as a lack of desire to help those who need it most, but let us take a look at how we got into this situation to begin with: The government spending money it does not have. How did the government get the money it spent? It borrowed it, and the Prime Minister continues to borrow more and more at higher and higher interest rates, which only causes higher inflation and the cost of everything to go up.

Members do not have to take my word for it. Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, when asked about the Liberals' inflationary bill, stated in the Vancouver news:

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.

In a recent news article published in Bloomberg, Mr. Robert Kavcic, senior economist with the Bank of Montreal, cautioned against new government support measures, stating, “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.”

While the Prime Minister flies around the world in his private air accommodations, espousing the virtues of a green economy and warming up his vocal cords with a little rhapsody at his hotel lobby debut, hard-working Canadians here at home are tightening their belts and making tough choices. The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table. This is not to mention the rising costs of heat, gasoline and rent.

However, the Liberals' one-time support benefit is for $467. Who does this help? Individuals without children earning more than $49,200 or a family of four, a couple with two children, earning more than $58,500 would receive no benefits, and it certainly would not help Canadians who are not renting.

By printing more cash, the government's inflationary spending does nothing to help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Because of the Prime Minister's uncontrolled spending with borrowed cash at higher interest rates, all Canadians will feel the pain of more inflation and higher prices, making it harder for workers, families and seniors to make ends meet. For years, the Conservatives have warned the Prime Minister about the consequences of his actions and how much they hurt Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The GST rebate will provide welcome relief that the Conservatives support, but it will not address the real problem. Inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rate in nearly 40 years.

To avoid adding costs to government, this side of the House proposes that the government look for savings in other areas to pay for its proposals. I do not stand here simply to criticize; I can also offer suggestions. For example, I fully support eliminating, and completely not allowing back, the ArriveCAN app. That would give us a cost savings of $25 million a year. Here is one the NDP should be able to get onside with: Let us scrap the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank to cancel corporate welfare programs that only help large and powerful companies.

Families are struggling now more than ever and they need help. Bill from Grand Falls-Windsor is wondering how he will be able to heat his home this winter and keep food on his table.

Let us ensure we do this right. Borrowing money to give this much-needed one-time help, in the long run, will do more harm and we will be right back here again. It is time to stop the vicious circle the government has created. Borrowing money to give to people who are struggling due to the high cost of living will only increase the cost of everything and drive up inflation. The Canadian economy has been thrown off a cliff, but unlike the Prime Minister when he bungee jumps, it does not have a bungee cord to stop it from crashing.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was trying to follow the hon. member's train of thought around inflation and the causes of inflation. The previous speaker talked about the root cause being supply chain issues and labour issues.

This bill was put in place to address helping the most vulnerable people in our communities. We know that in Atlantic Canada, many vulnerable people have been affected by Fiona and are looking for help in any way it can come. I was surprised that the hon. member would not want the government to help people on the lowest income scale and the ones who are the most vulnerable in our communities, thinking that would drive inflation. How does that square? I do not understand.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague does not agree with the Conservatives' stand on what is causing inflation, but I would like to take my colleague back to 2008, 2009 and 2010 when the world was reeling from a financial crisis. No one said then that it was a global problem. It was a global problem, but Canada sailed through it. Why should we have to be like the rest of Canada?

If the current government was doing the job the government in 2009 was doing, we would not have this inflation problem. We could be an anomaly. Inflation is driven by the carbon tax.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, a critical piece to the rise in the cost of living for Canadians is actually corporate greed. Some 23.6% of Canadians have to cut back on their food. Simultaneously, we are seeing CEOs at Loblaws, for example, bringing in literally billions of dollars, $9 billion. We see some CEOs pay out upwards of $125 million to their shareholders.

Could the member comment on the role greed is playing in Canada's economy and the cost that Canadians are paying?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I agree there is lots of corporate greed. It is now, it has always been and it always will be. However, corporations that manufacture things consume energy. When they consume energy, they pay carbon tax. That carbon tax is tax on goods. Then the goods are shipped out to the grocery store and there is a fuel surcharge. The carbon tax is compounded all the way along. On top of that, HST is thrown on the carbon tax. I know this. I have seen the bills and the invoices. It is not just greed. The number one factor here is the carbon tax.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not up to political parties to decide what is causing inflation. In a recent paper from the University of Calgary, economists found that three-quarters of inflation in Canada since the second quarter of 2021 has been driven by supply-side challenges such as food crops and oil production disruptions, for example.

The GST credit top-up we are discussing from this bill would be received by low- and modest-income households, folks who would be using the additional benefit to purchase the same goods they would have otherwise already consumed. It is the same reason that investing in the Canada disability benefit would not be inflationary spending.

Is the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame aware of, and has he seen, this research?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have seen the research, but we have to go back to the base here. We have a carbon tax that goes into every point of the logistics chain, and then HST is placed on that. It keeps pushing the cost of goods higher and higher. It is a failed tax-and-spend program. Actually, it is great. It achieved spending targets and is driving up our inflation. The United States, with no carbon tax, has lower emissions than it had in 2015 and our emissions are higher. This is a failure.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill C-30, I would like to say a few words about democracy.

As members know, I am strongly committed to democracy. Of course, everyone knows that I am a sovereignist, but I am first and foremost a democrat. I am a sovereignist precisely because the democratic ideal is the very foundation of the sovereignty of a people. Yesterday, in Quebec, 125 elections took place. I repeat, 125 elections. This was not “the Quebec election”; we held “elections”. There were 125 elections, and I would like to congratulate all the candidates, from all parties, who ran in my riding. In Montcalm, there are three Quebec ridings—

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

The hon. member for Jonquière on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is indeed a great democrat, and I am sure he would like to share his time.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. To assuage his existential angst, I would seek unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

It is agreed.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, behind all these numbers and causes, behind what we call inflation, the risk of recession and the economy, are human beings. I would propose taking a people-centred view or reading of what we experiencing as a result of this pressure, this crisis, this inflationary spike.

First, the bill proposes—and it is very technical—to amend the Income Tax Act with a temporary enhancement to the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax credit. The bill effectively creates a new refundable and therefore tax-free tax credit of $229.50 for a single person, $459 for a couple, and $114.75 per dependent child. People will then receive a cheque.

Obviously that is a good thing. I was saying earlier that we need meaningful solutions that are not strictly one-time measures. However, if they are, they need to be targeted in order to help the people who need them most, those who are struggling to make ends meet. To be eligible for the full amount, people have to have earned less than $39,826 in 2021. The cheque is reduced by 15¢ per dollar for people who earned more than that amount. In the end some 11 million people will have access to this measure.

The Bloc Québécois obviously supports this bill. A rare consensus has emerged in the House to get this small measure passed. It should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C-30, since we included this measure in the budget expectations we sent to the Minister of Finance back in March. Inflation demands a comprehensive approach to the economy. What we need to avoid above all else is proposing simplistic measures that may look very interesting on the surface and fire up our collective imagination but that, in reality, are not sustainable or strategic for the economy.

Since the pandemic, the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of government intervention and support. However, while we did need to support the people who really needed it, the Bloc said very early on that the measures needed to be adjusted to avoid any negative effects.

That is the same message we are sending the government about inflation. We want the measures to be adjusted so they are properly targeted, well thought out and intelligent. However, the document that was tabled, which proposes $100 billion in spending, is all over the map. It does not have the comprehensive approach and meaningful measures we advised.

Statistics Canada has identified the factors behind the rapid increase in prices, such as food prices.

These include ongoing supply chain disruptions, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, extreme weather and higher input costs. This situation calls not for one-time measures, but for long-term measures that will have a meaningful effect on the economy and provide predictability for people grappling with these ups and downs. Those are the kinds of measures that the Bloc Québécois is proposing to fight inflation. It is not enough to say that gas taxes must be cut.

I am a consumer and, unfortunately, I still have a gas-powered vehicle. Naturally, I would be happy to stop paying tax on gas. As I am protected by parliamentary privilege, I will say that it seems like the price at the pump is fixed by some kind of cartel. There seems to be some collusion in that regard.

I have never known oil companies to not turn a profit and not take advantage of all that. I even have the sense that there is enough fossil fuel for the next 50 years, but that they want to make us pay more because they know all this will end soon, given all the transitions that must be made.

Bernard Landry was one of my mentors, and he told me that he would love to do this, but he was not sure the money would reach consumers.

The government is getting richer as it collects more taxes on the higher prices. It should take this surplus and redistribute it intelligently, implementing targeted measures for people in need. I am not an economist, but I have learned that the last thing we should do in an inflationary period is unilaterally lower taxes. Not everyone needs that anyway.

In addition, the government should use its surplus to rebuild the economy and insulate it from a future inflationary crisis or recession. It must invest in the parts of the economic system that will enable us to face the challenges of tomorrow. One of those challenges is the labour shortage. I will come back to that because what is really bothering me at this point is the fact that our seniors are the first to suffer from higher inflation. A society that cannot take care of its frailest, most vulnerable members is a society that is heading for disaster.

Seniors no longer have an income or a salary that could increase. Their income is capped. They have a small amount of savings that is dwindling, causing them stress. As my mother used to say, people do not die of good health. We must therefore take care of these people, and those who are still able must be allowed to rejoin the workforce because there is a labour shortage. These are skilled workers, and if any of them are willing to go back to work, we should let them. It is going to take meaningful measures to fix this issue, and that is what I meant when I was talking about meaningful solutions. The Bloc Québécois has many to propose.

I am now ready to take questions.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much liked the speech by my colleague, the member for Montcalm.

That is a discussion we can have in Quebec since we have already set a price on pollution through the carbon exchange.

I have a question about that for my colleague. I know that in Quebec we have our own way of doing things. Quebec and other provinces such as British Columbia have shown that it is possible to put a price on pollution and still meet consumer needs.

Can my colleague elaborate on that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about meaningful measures that will have a lasting impact on the economy. The Bloc Québécois believes that we need to put our resources and ramp up all our investments into the green economy and thereby speed up the energy transition.

In Quebec, we do not have a carbon tax. We have a carbon exchange and I invite the other provinces to take part in it. That may be the best solution for everyone. When we look at the current crisis and the global economies, it is clear that we need to speed up the energy transition.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Montcalm talked about seniors, and I was very touched to hear that. I also read an article just yesterday on how inflation was having a huge impact on the lives of retired seniors. The article basically talked about how they would have to come back to the workforce, because they realized their pensions were not enough. Inflation had driven up costs and the high costs of taxes are driving them out of retirement.

I am interested to hear what the member has to say about those aspects and the reality of the carbon tax, not to mention the GST that is on top of that carbon tax. These huge costs are impacting seniors.

Could the member expand on how these will have huge impacts not only on seniors in Quebec but across the whole country?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Even before this inflationary crisis, in 2015, 2016 and 2017, seniors in my riding were telling me that it was possible to combat isolation and the undermining of their social independence. However, ageism is currently running rampant in our society.

Seniors have experience that can be transferred to other types of jobs. They would like to get up in the morning and tell themselves that they will contribute to society, albeit at their own pace. They would like to be sure that when they do go to work, the government is not going to claw it all back, as if they were volunteering and were again putting more money into government coffers.

By working, seniors are making a little extra money for themselves. People do not save at this age. They put their money back into the economy. They are less isolated, share their abilities and skills with society, can afford a few small luxuries, and are less sick and less stressed. From an economic and human perspective, it is a good solution. It is not for everyone, but we should encourage those who want to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, I did appreciate how the member for Montcalm made mention about corporate profits, especially in oil and gas. If we are going to talk about inflationary costs related to fuel and completely ignore the windfall profits that oil and gas companies are making off the backs of working families right now, we are doing a very real disservice.

Today, a report came out from Canadians for Tax Fairness. It reported that Canadian corporations paid $30 billion less than would be expected under the current corporate tax rates, so there is a very real problem here.

I wonder if the member for Montcalm can inform the House as to why both the official opposition and the governing Liberals seem to avoid talking about this serious issue in any real and meaningful way.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain that I understood the last part of the interpretation, but I would say to my colleague that all those individuals and businesses that are currently making outrageous profits should be able to pay their fair share.

He knows our views on tax avoidance and tax evasion. In 2015, the first measure we introduced when we arrived in the House was about tax havens. I believe that it is totally unacceptable and unfair that some people are not paying their fair share.

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 third time and passed.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to congratulate everyone who participated in Quebec's general election. As everyone knows, yesterday was election day in Quebec. I would like to congratulate the two new MNAs I will be working with in my riding.

I also want to congratulate all the people who took part in yesterday's great democratic process. Their participation is important to our democracy. As we all know, being in politics is not always easy. It takes a lot of courage, so I have a lot of respect for them. Naturally, I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the general election.

Today, we are taking part in the debate on Bill C‑30, which would increase the GST-HST credit. That will put money back into the pockets of people who need it. There is nothing random about this; it is a direct response to the worst inflationary crisis of the past 30 years.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. However, we have a lot of questions.

Also, I would like to begin with a quick introduction to highlight what happens when there is inflation and to talk about the various misconceptions we have heard.

Yesterday, I called the representatives of the organizations in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and asked them what they thought of the GST credit top-up. Of course, this is a welcome measure. Everyone is hurt by inflation. That said, when there is inflation, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

When I spoke yesterday with representatives from advocacy groups for people experiencing poverty and unemployment, they told me that poverty was already a growing problem even before the inflationary crisis, before the war in Ukraine. What is interesting, however, is that fewer people are applying for welfare, even though poverty rates are rising. What this actually means is that the people who are living in poverty now are the working poor and seniors. In other words, poverty is changing.

In order to paint a picture of the reality facing people back home, I would say that the image of poverty is also changing. I represent a riding that is largely rural, and in these areas, we are not used to seeing homeless people on a daily basis, as one does in big urban centres. These days, however, with the rising cost of groceries, prescription drugs and housing, some people do have to live on the street. This was unthinkable a few years ago. Of course I stand in solidarity with them, and I am trying to describe the reality facing people in my region.

I wanted to emphasize that because, despite what some people are saying, poverty is on the rise. A one-time GST-HST cheque is not going to make a huge difference.

When we talk about inflation, we have to be responsible. There are many things that we could say or consider doing so we could wave a magic wand and make inflation disappear. We have to be serious. We have to implement solutions that address the problems caused by inflation, and that goes beyond issuing a simple little cheque, contrary to what the government thinks and contrary to the claims of certain members who seem to think that inflation would disappear if only taxes were cut. I do not agree with their magical way of thinking.

We are in uncharted territory and we have to understand that. I am putting it in perspective.

We are currently seeing a rise in demand. In order to control inflation, we must try to change supply. Right now, there is a problem on both sides. Demand is growing but the supply is not necessarily keeping up. Inflation can be explained by a myriad of factors. Government is not responsible for all of our woes, although it is responsible for some of them. About 70% of the causes of inflation are related to external factors.

Consider the labour shortage, for example. The government does have a role to play in addressing the current labour shortage. However, there are other, external factors, such as the global disruptions in the supply chain and the war in Ukraine. These are complex issues that cannot be resolved by changing our monetary policy or passing a special act.

I will put forward constructive solutions to help the most vulnerable Canadians and to counter inflation.

These solutions are nothing new. I did not wake up this morning and decide that I had solutions for fighting inflation. That was already in our budgetary expectations for the 2022 budget tabled in April. There is something I still do not understand, and I hope that the government will clear up the mystery: Why did they not take action sooner?

In April, inflation was at 6.9%. When the government tabled its budget, the inflationary situation was practically identical. According to the latest data, inflation was at approximately 7% in August. What is the difference?

I do not understand. It is as if the government always reacts instead of being proactive. Governing involves being proactive. Although there was already an inflationary crisis last April, there was nothing in the last budget. Today’s bill represents $2.5 billion in government investment.

I will give an example. I like comparing things. This same government invested $2.6 billion to help oil companies develop carbon sequestration technology. For the people in need they wanted to help they decided to invest $2.5 billion, but for the ultrawealthy oil companies, no problem, they gave them $2.6 billion in the last budget. That is the Liberal government’s real priority.

Let us get back to concrete solutions. First, it is important to understand that the Bloc Québécois is not against financial assistance. We stood with the government when it wanted to provide targeted assistance at the beginning of the pandemic, whether through the emergency benefit or the wage subsidy for businesses. When the economy began to rebound after the pandemic, we even said that we should target certain sectors and help Canadians in need, low-income Canadians, vulnerable Canadians. Unfortunately, there was nothing like that in the last budget.

The thing to understand is that the Bloc Québécois does not like to waste money. Sending cheques left and right is not the answer. I think that today's measure is a good one, but it is late in coming. We are not a week or a month late, but five months late. The Minister of Finance spoke at the Empire Club last June, when inflation was raging. The theme of her conference was inflation. She only repeated what she had announced some months before, in the previous budget. There was not a single new measure to fight inflation.

Then, May, June, July, August and September came and went. The government finally woke up. It realized it needed to act. There was inflation. It decided to put meaningful measures in place to help Canadians. The government is now taking measures to support the people who need it, but, unfortunately, once again, it is working backward. We still do not understand why.

The Bloc Québécois believes in supporting the most vulnerable low-income earners. It is particularly concerned about seniors. They are the ones who are hardest hit. We know that. Their fixed income will not increase. We need to help them. They have told me, with great sadness, that they have to choose between going without medication, postponing their rent payments or taking food out of their grocery cart. It is imperative that we help them.

To boost supply, we need to address and resolve the labour shortage. To do that, we need to ensure that there are incentives, tax incentives for example, for experienced workers, particularly those aged 60 or 65 and over who want to stay in the workforce.

One last thing I would like to mention is Bill C‑295, which I introduced in the last Parliament. It was intended to provide a tax credit to attract new graduates to the regions. The population in the regions is aging, and that obviously plays into the labour shortage.

It is never too late to do the right thing, and today we want to give credit where credit is due. For the next time, however, let us remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really enjoying the discussion today.

The Bank of Canada has a target of 2% inflation that it is trying to bring us back to. As the member mentioned, in June inflation was growing, in July it peaked at 8.1%, and now it is coming back down to 7% because the Bank of Canada has introduced higher interest rates. The higher interest rates are impacting the more vulnerable people in Canada, so there is a combination there of trying to cool the housing market and trying to slow down the inflation caused by the out-of-control housing market. As the member says, the impact on seniors is something that we need to be addressing.

Could the member talk about how this is a targeted approach with a time limit so that, when inflation comes back toward 2%, we do not have something that is going to fuel inflation going forward?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to have a targeted measure for people who are truly in need, low-income Canadians and the most vulnerable.

My colleague mentioned the central bank. I think that it is also important to point out that we must reaffirm our confidence in our institutions. That is very important.

We heard many things from a new party leader, in particular that he wanted to abolish Canada’s central bank. It is sensible and perfectly normal to criticize the role of Canada’s central bank. We need to understand that, as an institution, it has succeeded in containing and maintaining inflation at a rate of 1% to 3% since 1991. Right now, however, we are facing the unknown, in terms of both supply and demand. Obviously, there are a number of external factors beyond the Bank of Canada’s control that are driving the rise in inflation. In this respect, we need to implement targeted measures, and the Bloc Québécois agrees.

I hope that the government will learn how to take action when faced with a particular situation rather than waking up five months later as it is doing now.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech from the member today about the uncharted territory. I would ask the member if he could share some thoughts on how he thinks the axing of the affordable housing programs back in the nineties by the Liberal government, and their not being reinstated by successive Conservative governments and Liberal governments, has really impacted affordable housing in the province of Quebec.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good question.

In my riding of Rimouski, the vacancy rate is 0.2%. It is unprecedented. It is historic, and it is serious. We are awaiting federal government programs, and I could name one, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s rapid housing initiative. The federal government announced $4 billion in the last budget, but so far no programs have been implemented.

I completely agree with my colleague that the federal government started disinvesting in the 1990s and that we are feeling the consequences of that disinvestment today. As I said before, the vacancy rate is 0.2%. It is unbelievable, and it hinders regional development. We need to attract both new workers and students to the region.

I hope that the government will release the funding and transfer the money to Quebec so that it can build new social housing units.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques noted, inflation is not new. Canadians have been living with inflation and a cost of living crisis for the better part of the past year. Only now is the government taking some short-term measures that I would submit constitute nothing more than band-aid solutions. At the same time, while the government is handing out a few hundred dollars here in rent cheques, the government will be taking back with the other hand, from those few Canadians who will benefit, in the form of increased taxes, the tripling of the carbon tax and an increase in payroll taxes in the new year.

Would the hon. member agree that what we have before us, with both Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, is nothing more than Liberal smoke and mirrors?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not completely agree with my colleague. I will explain my point of view in more detail.

Obviously, it looks good to send a cheque to people in need, but there are different ways of doing things. We can improve the productivity of our businesses; we can improve the competitiveness of our businesses.

Canada is among the countries with the least competitiveness. Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills. The government could step in to try to rebalance the market, which would help many taxpayers save tens, or even hundreds, of dollars a month.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin discussing Bill C-30, I must stop to recognize that indigenous women and girls continue to be violated and marginalized at rates much higher than those in the general population.

Today is the National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. New Democrats add their voices to the collective call to bring an end to the injustices suffered by Canada's indigenous women and girls. I raise my hands to the members for Winnipeg Centre and Nunavut, who continue to advocate and bring understanding to this House of the causes of the systemic abuses that indigenous women and girls continue to experience and to hold the Liberal government accountable for its lack of action.

Bill C-30 is here at a very critical time for Canadians. There are too many struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rents paid and food in the fridge. The fact that there is a need for immediate financial support for millions of Canadians is not an accident. It is a result of bad Liberal and Conservative policies. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have prioritized tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthiest in this country while intentionally eroding the social safety nets that support the well-being of the majority of Canadians. Poverty and homelessness are growing in this country, and they are a reality in every city and town.

While fossil fuel companies and big corporate grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, people are falling further and further behind. It is far past time the Liberal government needs to close the long-standing tax loopholes for the superwealthy and finally make large corporations and the largest polluters pay their fair share. It is no secret that corporate greed is hurting Canadians, and it has only increased and magnified like so many other things during this pandemic. While the Liberals and Conservatives protect the profits of the wealthiest corporations, persons with disabilities, single moms, seniors and families on fixed and low incomes are not able to afford to purchase fresh fruit, cheese or meats. Some of the moms I have spoken to in Port Moody—Coquitlam are limiting their meals to one a day so that they can afford to feed their kids.

After too many years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments making decisions to put corporations above everyday people, our social safety net is eroded. The social safety net that supports the well-being of Canadians has been eroded to the point that we are here today trying to put patches of immediate support in place.

New Democrats are here to act on this immediate need. We are using our power to get the government to send financial support out to people with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. I include Bill C-31 because the two bills are connected. They are both offering immediate investments in the well-being of people, investments that never would have come from the government without the pressure from New Democrats.

New Democrats will not stop fighting for people even after these immediate benefits kick in. We will continue to force the government to do the right thing and put people first. We will continue to stop fossil fuel subsidies from going to the largest polluters, close tax loopholes for the wealthiest, stop the exploitation of workers and get our health care system back on track. The health care system is broken. We see it in our communities every day. A broken health care system is hurting people. Nurses have worked tirelessly, as well as doctors and hospital staff, to the extent that they are burnt-out and people who are sick are not getting access to the care they need.

We have all heard the heartbreaking stories in our communities of those who have gone to the hospital for help and have not been able to make it in time or have decided not to go at all with fatal consequences. The government must invest in care workers immediately and increase the health care transfers the provinces have been calling for.

One in five people in this country work in the care economy, and those professionals, personal care workers, nurses and doctors have been exploited. That exploitation comes from discrimination. Gender discrimination has kept wages low in nursing. Nurses, teachers and child care workers are all disproportionately women. The government has not invested in their wages or their pensions, yet it expects them to carry the burden of an overloaded and underfunded economy and underfunded system.

The care economy is underpinned by the exploitation of immigrants as well. More often they are women without secured status. This is unacceptable. Immigrants deserve better. They deserve investment and support. New Democrats will continue to force the government to respect the workers in the care economy by paying them properly, giving immigrant care workers immediate permanent status and giving long-term care workers the protection they deserve with legislation.

We need workers in this country. Labour shortages are happening in every industry. This is a real problem that the government has not brought any solutions to yet. When we think about the labour force, we know that unaffordable housing is exasperating this problem. Workers cannot afford to live where they work. The Conservatives under the Mulroney government and then the Liberals under Chrétien axed housing programs in this country. In fact, the Liberals outright cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. That was almost 30 years ago. That is why we have a housing crisis before us.

Bill C-31 has a $500 housing subsidy that is coming for renters. This is a small, good gesture. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment to Canadians who qualify. Specifically, it will help families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. There are many people in Canada who earn less than $35,000 a year in this environment. That is 1.8 million Canadians. This renters' benefit will make a real difference at this critical time.

Financialization of housing needs to be addressed immediately. It is contributing to unaffordability. The Conservatives will say that they are there for people on housing, but they do not talk about the need for affordable housing and the right kind of housing. This is not just a supply issue. One in five Canadians are paying more than 30% of their total income for their housing and that is not sustainable. At the same time, for every new unit of affordable rental housing, 15 units are being lost. There are 15 units lost for every new one, and we wonder why we are seeing homelessness on our streets. This is affecting the most marginalized people in the country, pushing them every day to the brink, to a tent pitched in a street.

As the NDP disability critic, I hear from the disability community of the realities of not being able to make ends meet with skyrocketing housing costs and the threat of displacement every day. Food costs are also becoming unmanageable. As they wait for movement on the Canada disability benefit, they are falling further and further behind. Bill C-22 needs to come back to the House immediately so that the long-term support that persons living with disabilities deserve, and should be legislated, can be passed in the House.

Almost one million persons with disabilities are living in poverty. It is a disgrace. It will only take the will of the Liberals and Conservatives, who could have supported the unanimous consent motion from the member for Kitchener Centre last week, to fast-track this benefit. The New Democrats are ready to do so.

Coming back to the cost of food, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, a disproportionate number of food bank and food rescue recipients are persons with disabilities, and more children are becoming food insecure. Too many schools are having to feed the children of our communities. We are in a country full of natural resources and with a new bursting aspiration to make batteries for electric vehicles, yet we are not investing in food. If it were not for the not-for-profit sector, even more Canadians would be hungry right now.

Failed policies to give to the rich while taking away social safety nets, such as affordable housing, are hurting people in this country. A beacon of the Canadian social safety net is our health care plan. Thanks to the New Democrats, that finally includes a historical dental care plan, which is a profound and long-lasting benefit for millions of Canadians and will be transformational for generations to come. We have heard many times while discussing Bill C-31 that the number one surgery for kids in hospitals is for tooth decay. How is it possible in Canada that kids need to go to the hospital to be put to sleep to deal with their dental care?

With the heavy lifting of the New Democrats, the Liberals have finally taken the first steps to true universal health care by adding long-awaited dental care. It should not have taken this long, and the New Democrats will hold the current government to account for a full rollout to every Canadian who needs it.

I will take a moment here to speak about persons with disabilities and their dental care. There was a woman in my riding who was on disability benefits and had coverage for dental care. However, the clinic she was going to was charging $20 per visit, and she could not go for her second visit because she did not have the $20. It is not acceptable that this is the situation we are putting too many Canadians in.

We know that 35% of Canadians lack proper dental insurance, and that number jumps to 50% when we talk about low-income Canadians. There are seven million Canadians who avoid going to the dentist because of costs. It is shameful and something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease and have the worst dental care. The New Democrats are going to change that. We will not give up until all Canadians have access to the dental care they need. This is health care, and we need to start with kids.

Lastly, when it comes to getting immediate support to Canadians, the New Democrats led the way on Bill C-30, which would double the GST credit. This rebate should have come a lot sooner. In fact, for over six months, the NDP has been calling on the government to double the GST credit. We have relentlessly pushed for this, and now we know that 11 million Canadians who need it the most would get some financial relief, likely before the end of this year. People in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam are asking when they can get it. They are desperately in need of any kind of financial support in these times.

Because of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, we do not have social safety nets to keep people in homes, keep food in the fridge or keep people healthy in this country. With much pressure on the Liberal government from the NDP, and with no help from the Conservatives, the House is in a position to make lives just a tiny bit better for people by providing these very small income supports immediately. New Democrats will always put people first, but the Liberal government needs to start making real investments in people and their well-being in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has not been fair in her comments. Let me give two examples. She talks about the issue of housing and was critical of the Liberals on housing back in 1993. In the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, the federal New Democrats, along with the Liberals and the Conservatives at the time, actually wanted no role for the federal government in housing. The Prime Minister has invested more money in public housing than any other prime minister before him.

The member made reference to corporate greed. When it comes to corporate greed, the provincial NDP Government of Manitoba cut corporate taxes, not only once, twice or three times, but about five or six times. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government put a special tax on the 1% wealthiest Canadians.

Would the member not agree that over time there is a need for a change in policy, as illustrated in both of those examples?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are people living in tents in this country and not by choice. There are people living in tents in urban centres and rural communities in this country. I do not think it is the time for the Liberals to be taking a victory lap on housing, because the Prime Minister had no choice but to make these very large investments, which, as the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, we have not seen hit the ground yet.

I have been on the front line of housing for eight years, and there is no scenario where the Liberals should be taking any victory lap on getting us to the point where Canadians need to live in tents.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP, with its partnership and coalition with the Liberals, keeps propping them up for these victory laps.

My question is a simple one. His Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been proposing, over the last several days, a series of propositions to make life more affordable for Canadians by reducing taxes and reducing, or not implementing, the tripling of the carbon tax, yet this member has voted against every single measure Conservatives have brought forward to improve the affordability and inflationary crises Canadians are facing. I am wondering how the member could justify that to her constituents.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are in the situation that we are in, these one-sided approaches to cutting taxes.

In B.C., the roads were washed out by floods caused by climate change. We need to have a real discussion about what is happening with climate change, and how impactful and expensive it is. I am not going to just talk about expenses. Right now in my community of Coquitlam, there is a wildfire burning, and people with asthma or any kind of breathing difficulties have to stay inside. This is what is going on.

The Conservative member asking me this question is such a magnification of why we are here. There is no reasonable way that pollution is not causing hardship to Canadians. We need to have a real discussion about that. If we do not have a discussion about climate change and pollution, we are doing a disservice to every Canadian now and in the future.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam spoke specifically about encampments across the country. My community is an example. We have seen the unsheltered population triple in recent years. As a result, encampments have grown. She named one of the root causes, which is that corporate investors are treating our houses like stocks. Instead, homes should be for people to live in.

Could the member speak more to specific solutions, for example, taxing real estate investment trusts at the same rate as the corporate income tax rate?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to share something similar on the encampments.

In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, there has basically been a gentrification. I met an EA, a woman in her sixties, on the street a couple of weeks ago. She is afraid that she is going to lose her home because she is being lobbied weekly by these large real estate developers. They want to be sold the land. They want her out of her home, and she does not actually own that home. She rents the basement suite.

It is the Wild West of real estate right now. I think that it starts with a moratorium on REITs. We are losing co-op housing and affordable rental housing to REITs. We need to start with that moratorium, and then we need to move on to, yes, more taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's speech. I appreciate the voice she gave to so many important issues, which are important not only in her community, but also in mine and those right across this country.

I think here in Canada we actually have a revenue problem. A new report came out today from Canadians for Tax Fairness. It reports that last year, $30 billion less was collected in tax from corporations than would be expected under existing rates. We can look at that revenue problem and look at the fact that oil and gas companies are making well over 100% in profit off of the back of working families right now. I hear Conservatives talk about the carbon tax, but there has not been a word from them on the corporate windfalls in oil and gas, which are affecting their constituents right now. They are not speaking up for them.

Could the member expand on the theme of the revenue problem we have in this country and the huge deficits in social spending, housing, health care and the ability to put good quality food on the table? Could she expand on the structural problems we have in place, from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, and how they have done a disservice not only to this generation but also to future generations?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this to light. This is the conversation that we need to be having.

Why is it that there is a very, very small slice of this country, made up of a few people and a few corporations, that is unloading the burden of the social safety net, the burden of taking care of people, on average Canadian workers and then walking away with unlimited profits to offshore them? This is a serious systemic problem with tax fairness, and the New Democrats are ready to tackle it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcomed the speech by my hon. colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam because I think we share many of the same concerns.

Getting back to housing, I do remember in the 1990s when the federal government pulled out of the housing sector. It was a big shock to many of us who were involved in the co-operative movement at that time. I am very glad to see the federal government is back there.

Recently, in Châteauguay, we had the opportunity to announce a supportive housing project in the rapid housing initiative. Does my hon. colleague think that this is going in the right direction? By the way, that supportive housing initiative of $6 million is to renovate an abandoned hotel to provide housing for youth in transition from Châteauguay and Kahnawake. It is an excellent example of collaboration between our two communities.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do like hearing about the initiatives that are hitting the ground and actually moving forward. I am very happy to hear that.

I wanted to speak a little bit about the rapid housing initiative because it is something that municipalities so desperately want and need. Too many of those rapid housing initiatives have been denied. In fact, one of my colleagues here from the NDP had a fully planned partner for a rapid housing initiative that they wanted to proceed with, but there was no ability to, no money.

I have an Order Paper question on how many of these rapid housing initiatives were denied, but the government is not capturing it. It does not even understand the size of the demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleagues engaged on a really important topic, which is Bill C-30.

I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge.

We are talking about Bill C-30, legislation that would double the GST credit for the next six months. Fortunately, we have been able to move the legislation forward quickly, because Canadians need support, particularly those who are vulnerable. There have been a lot of conversations around affordability and the inflationary pressures being felt around the world and, indeed, right here in Canada.

I will give credit to His Majesty's loyal opposition for helping to work with the parties in advancing the legislation the government has put forward, because we are on third reading now. The hope is that we can approve it, I believe this week, and get it to the Senate and ultimately out to Canadians.

This is part of an affordability package that also includes Bill C-31, which would increase the Canadian housing benefit by up to $500 for those who are vulnerable. It would also introduce a dental care program for those children who are under 12 in a household with an income of less than $90,000 and do not already have private coverage.

I will call it as I see it. I commend the Conservatives for supporting this legislation, but I am a little disappointed that they are not supporting the legislation that is really important for those children who are vulnerable. I have not heard a whole lot of compelling rationale as to why they would not support this.

There is another issue about which I want to go on record. I have had conversations with my colleagues on this side of the House and have been querying the NDP over the last couple of days as it relates to the dental care piece. The NDP has been calling for this to be a fully federally administered program, and I want to be very clear about my position on that.

I support the idea of the Government of Canada investing in money to support those who do not have the ability to take care of their dental needs themselves, that there is a program in place for vulnerable Canadians, but I would like to see this administered similar to our child care program. We talked about child care for a long time. It was this government that stepped up and ensured there was a national child care program, by putting federal funds on the table and working with the provinces and territories.

I have a bit of concern on the NDP position that this should be completely fully administered federally. It is not that there is no federal funding, which is not the part I disagree with; it is about the delivery mechanism. I truly believe that the provinces and territories are in a better place. I want to ensure that my position as a parliamentarian is on the record. It is not that we disagree about the need for it, but I might disagree with the NDP about the delivery mechanism. The provinces are actually better suited to handle that.

This is all happening in the context of a government that is trying to walk the line between helping vulnerable Canadians who need support, but also not pouring fuel on the fire in an area where we do have inflationary pressures. The Bank of Canada is increasing its interest rates to try to bring down inflation, and it is responsible government to ensure that any type of spending measures coming forward are very targeted. I want to give credit to this government for doing that.

Our government has been there. This is a targeted measure that will apply to Canadian households under $50,000, so this is not a GST benefit that is going to those who are quite wealthy and well off. It tries to help those who are truly trying to get by. It is a targeted measure. My understanding of the cost estimate is that it will be about $2.5 billion, which is from the Minister of Finance. When we look at the global scale of the inflationary pressures, of the work of the Bank of Canada, it is a reasonable amount that I do not think will upset the apple cart vis-à-vis those conversations between monetary and fiscal policy.

I want to contrast that to what we are seeing in the United Kingdom. I have a great affinity with this being the mother Parliament, and we take a lot of British tradition in Canada from a Westminster perspective. However, we saw what happened in the United Kingdom, where its government introduced a level of government spending by virtue of tax credits, particularly those on some of the most wealthy, and that has had real consequences. It has driven interest rates even higher for the Bank of Canada. It has shaken financial markets in that country. The United Kingdom just announced yesterday that it actually walked back the tax cut that was proposed for those of the highest income earners.

It is not perhaps my job to opine on fiscal policy in the United Kingdom, but it is clear that the consequences of that government's choice has led to a real disruption of the work of monetary policy and has had a big impact on financial markets.

Compare that to how this government has responded in a reasonable and targeted way, working in lockstep with the Bank of Canada. It should be commended, and it shows reasonable fiscal management.

As a result, our Minister of Finance has been able to update the House that we are in a current surplus situation. We have had to rein in our spending. There was record spending during the pandemic to ensure we took care of Canadian households and businesses. However, it is also our job to ensure that we do not continue to drive inflationary pressures that have been felt around the world, that we take measures to help support those who are most vulnerable.

I would like to focus on some other measures that will be important for supporting affordability and economic growth and competitiveness in the days ahead. I think the next 18 to 24 months are going to be difficult for the Canadian economy and for Canadian households. That is in the form of regulatory modernization and approach. I take great pride in trying to be a member of Parliament that raises these issues. They are of great benefit and consequence to our country and for our government.

I want to go through a few of them for the benefit of my colleagues in the House and talk about elements this government can take on to drive and help benefit all Canadians.

One is the huge opportunity that we have in Atlantic Canada on offshore wind, particularly with regard to the conversation of hydrogen. Premier Tim Houston, the Premier of Nova Scotia, announced a desire to roll out offshore wind opportunities. I am looking at my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Newfoundland and Labrador has the same desire, but we have to amend legislation on the offshore petroleum board act, which would actually allow these types of regulatory models to exist. This would give the investor confidence for those projects to move forward.

There is one example on which the government can move forward, and I know it will. In short order, we need to give that certainty, so we can drive investment on our renewable future.

I want to talk about Health Canada. As the chair of the agriculture committee, I often talk to farmers. I talk to other stakeholders who talk about Health Canada approvals.

I will give one example, which is 3-NOP, a feed additive to help support the reduction of methane from livestock. We call them cow burps. This is a product that can help us fight climate change. It has regulatory approval in Europe. It has regulatory approval in the United States. The company is now in the process of applying to Health Canada. It could be another 18 to 24 months by the time it actually works its way through Health Canada's system.

What if we took trusted jurisdictions around the world, let us say, the United States, Europe, New Zealand and Australia, which have similar values to what we have with respect to public safety and public protection, and changed the model. What if we allowed a company, which had a product, a service or some type of element that would have to go through Health Canada but it already had approvals in those jurisdictions in which we have trust, to start operating in Canada, go through the regulatory process and until such time that Health Canada found a rationale for why it should not operate in our country, it would have a presumptive approval to go ahead?

Those are some examples where we can move forward. I want to discuss this one further. These are the type of elements that we need to start thinking about. We have to be creative on how we can create wealth, how we can drive innovation and foreign direct investment on elements that do not cost money. It is going to be important.

Another example would be gene editing, and we have talked about this in the House, with regard to plant proteins. This is something for which the guidance documents were provided by Health Canada. That is driving important investment in the country, because it is giving the regulatory certainty.

Airports, whether it border modernization, or the Canada Grain Act, or seed modernization or even SMR technologies, the government and we, as parliamentarians can do a lot of work that is non-cost-measures that will help drive innovation.

I wish I had more time. Perhaps I will find another time in the days ahead to continue to elaborate on those points, but on regulatory reform modernization, we can continue to drive that bus and it will help drive Canada in the days ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member talk about regulatory reform and things like that. One of the things that is costing the economy dramatically is the tripling of the carbon tax. I wonder if the hon. member would say that perhaps now is not the time to increase the carbon tax, never mind triple it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are driving a narrative about tripling the carbon price in Canada. It is actually a tripling between now and 2030, not right now. It is going up by $15 this year. What the Conservatives also do not recognize is that this money is returned back to households and businesses.

I know the Conservatives take issue with the carbon price. Instead of offering tangible alternatives or amendments to the existing federal backstop, they simply have a slogan “technology over taxes”, but no idea of how to even incentivize the private sector to drive those technologies.

It is a bit of a false narrative. The money is returned to Canadians. It is seen as the most economic way to reduce emissions. I do not hear any tangible alternative from the opposition bench on what the Conservatives would do to fight climate change or if it is even a priority for them.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

Inflation was 6.9% in April when the government tabled its budget. The latest data show that it was 7% in August. Today, the government has suddenly woken up and decided to implement measures to counter inflation.

My question is very simple: Why did the government wait five months after tabling the budget to propose concrete, meaningful measures to deal with inflation? Why did it not do it in April's budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks on economic policy. I think he would know that with inflation no one has a perfect handle, exactly. Its root causes are driven by a lot of different factors. Whether they are demographic, supply chain or government spending, there is a whole lot in it.

When the government tabled its budget in the spring, it would have been looking at the situation and wondering whether that inflationary period was going to continue. It is clear that it is still hanging on right now. Notwithstanding that the work of the Bank of Canada to help bring down demand and inflation, we felt it was necessary at this point to put support measures in place. We do not want to overplay our hand. We do not want to pour fuel on the fire. Notwithstanding that the member would have liked to see even more support at that time, we think it is important to hold back some of that support until such time that it is needed. The government feels that right now is an important time.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going through one of the greatest cost of living crises for this generation. A recent study, for example, showed that 23.6% of Canadians have had to cut back on their food purchases. These are critical foods, from fresh produce to things like flour, but what I have not heard the member mention is the cost of corporate greed. The reality is that people, everyday Canadians, are paying more at the pump and at grocery stores, while the CEO of Sobeys, for example, raked in 15.5% more in his total compensation budget, coming in at $8.6 million.

Would the member agree that we have to rein in the massive excess profits of companies like Sobeys that are profiting off the backs of hurting Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple things. On nutritious food for Canadians, on a policy matter, the government continued to pursue in earnest the national school food program. I believe a billion dollars was allocated in last year's budget to help roll out that program over the next five years. The member mentioned healthy food and support for Canadians. We should be pursuing that in earnest through the school system to help ensure children have support.

As it relates to CEOs, I have had the opportunity to speak to that in the House. If the New Democrats want to put forward motions or put forward proposals to increase taxes for those who are most wealthy in the country, they can do so. I am concerned a bit about the narrative, particularly from the leader of the NDP who is almost villainizing Canadian corporate leadership in the way that it is robbing Canadians blind.

There needs to be a bit more evidence of whether that is the case. I know we will be studying this in the agriculture committee. However, there is this class warfare and this villainizing of Canadian corporate leadership and I worry about the consequences of what that means. I would call the same thing on the Conservatives in terms of some of their villainizing of these unknown gatekeepers. At the end of the day, we need to have a tone that is respectful and policy solutions that will move us forward.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon to all my colleagues here.

I would be remiss if I did not say that for these last few weeks and for a very long time, my heart, my thoughts and my prayers are with the Iranian Canadian community and with Iranians in Iran. Obviously, we want all countries to abide by the principles of human rights, democracy and freedom. What we are seeing now in Iran is that young people, this young woman and many women there are fighting for their rights. We are in full support of them. I have a very vibrant, growing and generous Persian community in the city of Vaughan and in York Region. I have spoken with many of them, and I want them to know that I fully support them, that I fully stand beside them, and that we are there with them.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this bill. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key priority for this government, and I would like to highlight some of the measures we are taking to address the cost of living.

The bills tabled in Parliament on Tuesday represent the latest suite of measures to support Canadians with the rising cost of living without adding fuel to the fire of inflation.

The government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation.

It has been a tough couple of years for all of us, with COVID-19, inflation and the war in Ukraine. It seems like we have to overcome one thing after another, but there are always better days ahead. The pandemic has been, we hope, a once-in-a-generation crisis, but like any major crisis, this one has aftershocks, and inflation is chief among them.

Inflation is not a made-in-Canada challenge. It is actually less severe here than it is among our peers. Nonetheless, we must assist Canadians. Inflation has made the cost of living into a real struggle for many Canadians, including residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and especially for the most vulnerable: our seniors, folks on fixed incomes and working Canadians. We understand that there are people going through hard times, so Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, would double the goods and services tax credit for six months. Bill C-31, the cost of living relief act, no. 2, would enact two important measures: the Canada dental benefit and a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit.

Doubling the GST credit for six months would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support 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.

Single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive up to an extra $467 this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average.

The proposed extra GST credit amounts would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump-sum payment before the end of this year, pending the adoption of the legislation. Importantly, recipients would not need to apply for the additional payment, but they need to file their 2021 tax return, if they have not done so already, to be able to receive both the current credit and the additional payment. I am happy to say that it is estimated that 11 million individuals and families would benefit from this additional support, including about nine million single people and almost two million couples. In total, this represents about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.

Let us look at the next measure. The Canada dental benefit would be provided to children under 12 who do not have access to private dental insurance, starting this year. Direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, or up to $650 per year, would be provided for dental care services.

This is the first stage of the government's plan to deliver dental coverage for families with an adjusted net income under $90,000 and will allow children under 12 to receive the dental care they need while the government works to develop a comprehensive national dental care program.

Also, the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program would deliver a $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. This more than doubles the government's budget 2022 commitment, reaching twice as many Canadians as initially promised. The federal benefit will be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families, or below $20,000 for individuals, who spend at least 30% of their adjusted net income on rent.

In addition to these important pieces of legislation, I would also like to speak about another important measure to help Canadian families, and that is early learning and child care. On child care, the economic argument is clear. The government believes it is an economic malpractice to force women to choose between their families and a career. Early learning and child care is a feminist economic policy in action.

That is why, despite reasonable doubts about our ability to make it happen, we have already signed early learning and child care agreements with every province and territory.

We are building a universal early learning and child care system at precisely the time when our economy needs all mothers who want to work, as long as they can be certain their children are receiving good care and a good education. Our plan makes it easier for people to work, and it makes life more affordable for middle-class Canadian families.

Three years from now, the average cost of child care across the country will be $10 a day.

Affordable early learning and child care, with savings that start immediately, promises to be an important part of the solution to affordability challenges for many Canadian families. Labour force shortages are a problem right now for our economy. In actual fact, there are 952,000 vacancies across Canada where employers are looking for employees. I will repeat, there are 952,000, and affordable early learning and child care is going to be such an important part of Canada's solution. It is going to help us build an economy and a country that is stronger and, yes, more prosperous.

The measures that the government tabled on Tuesday would deliver targeted support to Canadians who need it most, without exacerbating inflation, building on our government's affordability plan and, yes, being fiscally prudent. We are putting more money back in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class.

For those Canadians who need it most, Bill C‑30, Bill C‑31 and early learning and child care services are measures that will help make life more affordable.

We will continue to provide support where it is needed most and in a timely fashion, while maintaining fiscal discipline.

Our economy is strong in respect of our labour market. We know Canadian employers need workers, which I am asked about all the time in the area I represent, but we also must deal with the affordability challenges that Canadians face. As a father of three daughters, my wife and I know what the prices are at the grocery stores. I empathize with Canadians who are facing those challenges. Our government, working with all parties, needs to rise up to those challenges and help Canadians expeditiously. It is great to see the opposition parties supporting the doubling of the GST tax credit by the end of the year.

I encourage all Canadians, as the former parliamentary secretary to the national revenue minister, to please file their taxes. That is how they receive all their credits and benefits, and that is how our government can help them expeditiously, efficiently and before the end of the year with the challenges they and their families may be facing at this critical juncture.

We know we are building a stronger economy, and we know we are maintaining a strong fiscal footprint and framework for my children and all Canadian children, but we have work to do.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member that grocery prices are at their highest rate since 1981, that more than 70% of families with children will not receive this support and, in fact, lower-income families will receive no benefits at all.

Will the member support those who are hardest hit by the cost of living crisis and call for the Prime Minister to cancel the carbon tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families from coast to coast to coast are dealing with the pressures of inflation when they are buying diapers, food and groceries of any sort. We know what those prices are. I definitely know them.

What I can say is that our government has undertaken concrete measures, not only today but in the past. These include the Canada child benefit, which means more money flowing tax-free monthly to nine out of every 10 Canadian families; the Canada workers benefit, which gives up to $2,500 to working Canadians at the end of the year; the doubling of the GST credit; and cutting middle-class taxes, not just once, but twice. It will be literally billions of dollars returned.

We are there and will continue to be there to help Canadian families, especially the most vulnerable. We will continue to make the middle class stronger in Canada and to assist those working hard to join the middle class.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He made several references to wanting to help families.

In Bill C‑30, the measure seeking to introduce a non-refundable tax credit to help the people who need it, that is, the most vulnerable and low-income Canadians, will cost the government $2.5 billion.

In the last budget, the same government subsidized oil companies to the tune of $2.6 billion to deploy new carbon capture technologies.

What is more important? Is it subsidizing oil companies or helping low-income families that really need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from la belle province for his question.

I will say this: I support Canada's energy workers from coast to coast to coast. I always will. They do a great job in supporting our economy. They are necessary, now more than ever.

If members read this week's Economist, they will see that investments in LNG and natural gas throughout the world are very critical at this important time. We will also, at the same time, continue to build a very strong economy by helping the Canadians who are most vulnerable, including low-income Canadians. That is what we have done since day one. We are building a stronger middle class and helping those working hard to join the middle class.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a welcome thing. It is nice to see some unanimity and agreement on Bill C-30 at this present time among all the parties. On the GST credit, I believe that families in my riding and across the country could have used this a lot earlier. In May and June, the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, was calling on the government repeatedly to do just that, but it was refused each and every time.

What happened with the Liberals? What changed over the summer? Why did they not seek to do this sooner, so that Canadian families who were struggling in May and June could have had this help a lot faster?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: We have had the backs of Canadians since day one, when we formed government in 2015. We demonstrated that through the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to demonstrate it now that we have inflationary pressures hitting Canadian families. Whether it is through the Canada child benefit, the raising of old age security by 10% for seniors, or lowering the age for seniors from 67 to 65, we have introduced a number of measures. We have lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty. We will continue to do so with targeted measures and good policy that is good for our economy, good for people, reducing inequality and ensuring inclusive economic growth.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today but also to follow my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge. I appreciate the opportunity.

First, I would ask for members' indulgence to address what many members already have this morning, and that is what we are seeing happening in geopolitical affairs, in particular in Iran. As I walked home last night, we saw the colours of Iran's flag flashed on Parliament Hill, but I could not help but feel just a little embarrassed because that seems to be what the government wants to do, which is to put out more signals or do things that do not cost much money as a way to show our solidarity.

It would be okay if we were doing many other things, but let us remember that the government said it would put these colours on the Peace Tower on Sunday. That was the first thing it said it would do when 50,000 people gathered at a rally to show their solidarity with what is happening with people in Iran and those who are fighting for their fundamental freedoms. It is almost like it was the same ministers holding up the sign that said, “I stand with Ukraine,” but never following it up with concrete actions.

I have to commend at least one member from that side of the House while I have the floor, the member for Willowdale, who had the courage to go on TV and say that the government has not done enough. I hope that more members in the House feel empowered to speak on behalf of themselves and the issues they feel strongly about.

Now let us talk about Bill C-30 while we are here. This is the temporary enhancement to the goods and services tax, the HST tax credit. I want to commend our chair for getting this bill through Parliament very well. It was a very lively committee with the minister. It is always a pleasure to have her there. I cannot say many questions were answered, but it was nice to see some co-operation on all sides of the aisle to get this bill back to the House in short order.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. The Bank of Canada says inflation crushes the most vulnerable people the hardest. That is why it is important we get inflation under control. I do believe this measure is supported on all sides of the House. It is important that we stand together with our most vulnerable. This tax credit would help those individuals.

The government needs to be doing more to help Canadians with inflation. This is why I was surprised the Deputy Prime Minister could not answer the question at committee yesterday of whether this initiative would lead to more inflation. I was not asking the question of whether it would lead to more inflation so we would not do this policy. It was so that maybe the government could take other steps elsewhere to reduce its impact on inflation.

We are paying for this with more debt. We are still in a deficit. Let us remember it was not long ago that people were questioning spending in this House and other people were saying it was irresponsible not to spend because interest rates were so low. Now, interest rates are much higher, so the cost of the debt we are putting on future generations is incredible.

The PBO says interest costs could potentially double if the trajectory of interest rates continues. That is a lot of money that is not going to be able to be spent on social programs in this country, programs that everyone relies on: health care, helping seniors, making sure that our social security safety nets are there for generations.

At committee yesterday, we were told that the government has a new-found religion called fiscal restraint. I think the young kids these days would say that fiscal restraint has entered the chat. However, I am not really sure if that is going to happen. Let us let history be our guide. This is a government that is addicted to debt and spending. It is placing an incredible burden on our future generations.

The solution to every problem that the Liberal government sees is more spending. The government has grown spending by well over 8% every year since coming into office. In fact, its spending is up 25% this year when compared to pre-COVID levels. Now we are to believe that, from this time going forward, the government is going to keep spending growth to 2%. I find that very hard to believe. In fact, some would say it is very unlikely.

If we were at a party and saw a teenager going back to the punch bowl and could not tear them away, and all of a sudden that teenager had one last big swig and said, “That's it. I'm done,” would we believe that youngster? I do not think so.

The dirty secret of the government right now is that it is awash in revenues. It has never made as much money as it is right now. The NDP want to discuss windfall tax profits from those corporations that are having record profits this year, but let us talk about a windfall tax on the government. Why does it not give some of that tax money back to Canadians or maybe cut some taxes to begin with? Every week that goes by it is breaking a record for the amount of money it is bringing in due to inflation.

I would submit the government does not need more money with additional tax increases. It has to provide relief to Canadians by either cutting taxes or providing additional relief. Germany, the U.K., France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and I could go on, but I think I only have four minutes left and I would exhaust that. These are all countries that have reduced taxes on fuel or paused tax increases. They have provided relief for people with energy bills in their countries. We are approaching a cold season. It is going to be hard for many Canadians across this country to heat their homes, yet they hear the government talk about how important it is that we pay a carbon tax.

Let us just take a break. We do not have to be all or nothing. If gasoline is at two dollars a litre, maybe the carbon tax could be reduced to zero. If gasoline is $1.25 a litre, perhaps the government could come up with a much lower number to be applied. It should at least give us a break. At two dollars a litre, people cannot afford it. It is not as though people have a choice. Many people have to put a certain amount of gas in their car every week to get to work, to take the kids to soccer practice and activities or to get to the grocery store. Not everybody lives near a subway line. Not everybody lives with public transit right around the corner. They cannot walk anywhere. We do not have horse and buggies everywhere, at least not in many parts of this province. Although some very wonderful people rely on that mode of transportation, it is not realistic for all Canadians.

Therefore, let us acknowledge that people are hurting right now. Instead of lowering our taxes like our peers, our answer to higher energy prices is to make them higher. The carbon tax is inflationary. The Bank of Canada admits this, but the government does not seem to want to answer that question. What is it that our government knows that all of these other countries somehow do not know? We are the only country in the world that is choosing to make energy more expensive.

As I conclude, I want to say that, on our side of the House, we were pleased to see this bill move forward quickly because it is going to provide relief, albeit a small relief, to Canadians in need. I appreciate that opportunity.

I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, whom I very much look forward to hearing on this matter as well.

I welcome any questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way for Simcoe North mentioned one half of an equation, which is that Canada's debt level has increased over the last few years, particularly as we were dealing with COVID. In order to keep Canadians alive and well through those difficult times, the government had many programs in place to help.

The other side of the equation is GDP growth, which I did not hear the member mention. We are second in the G7 with respect to GDP growth. We are leading some of the countries he mentioned with two times the GDP growth. Our fiscal anchor is the debt-to-GDP ratio. Could the member comment on how our strong GDP growth is helping us get through what we are going through right now?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had some strong GDP growth, but we are also coming off of some significant GDP losses. In fact, the economy was quite slow and shrunk over a period of time, so we are actually coming up from a lower base. That is why we have GDP growth.

Let us talk about what GDP growth allows us to do. It provides a lot of revenues to the government in the form of taxation. Therefore, I do not understand why we need to talk about increasing taxes on Canadians when, as the member opposite has said, GDP is doing okay. By the way, when the Liberals ran in the 2015 election they said that a 1.5% or 1.6% growth in GDP was not enough, which is about where we are right now.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing the Conservative Party suggested to counter inflation: cryptocurrency. We learned in a recent Privy Council backgrounder that cryptocurrency offers no protection against inflationary shocks.

This summer, cryptocurrency lost half of its value compared with the beginning of last year. I would like my colleague to explain why it is that his leader, the hon. member for Carleton, claims that cryptocurrency protects against inflation. Specifically, I would like to know whether my colleague really believes that cryptocurrency is protected from surges in inflation.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I follow some of the financial markets, like my fellow colleague. I am not sure that members of the Conservative Party have said that cryptocurrency is going to solve inflation. If we say that Canada should be a destination for fintech revolution, I would welcome that.

Let us remember what is happening around the world and why some people use cryptocurrency. We can look at countries like Venezuela and Argentina where inflation is incredible. Those people have turned to cryptoassets as a hedge against inflation. Yes, the amount has come down in some cases by 10% or 20% or even 30%, but if we look at what is happening to inflation in those countries we see that those people are losing purchasing power at upward of 50% in some years.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about how important it is not to put an additional burden on Canadians and not to increase taxation on Canadians. However, what I would like to point out is that it has been over half a century since corporations paid the same rate that Canadians pay, since 1952, in fact. I wonder if the member would be open to the idea of taxing corporations that are making massive profits right now so that they are paying their fair share and we would have that revenue stream in this county.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before we increase taxes on companies, why do we not just make the companies in Canada pay the taxes they owe? Why do we not start there? There was just a report from the Canadians for Tax Fairness that said there is upward of $30 billion, which I am sure will make my friends in the NDP happy, that the government is not collecting. Before we talk about increasing taxes on other companies and Canadians, why do we not just make the people and the corporations pay the taxes they currently owe?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in the House of Commons today in a very sheltered environment. Outside these walls there are many challenges. With the inflation rate now increasing to over 7%, we have seen in the last couple of months some of the highest inflation in the last 40 years.

The Conservatives, over the last seven years, have warned the Prime Minister about where the end of the road is and what the consequences are of his tax-and-spend agenda. However, our warnings have gone unheeded. This is perhaps not surprising from a Prime Minister who does not think about monetary policy.

Think about what that means, actually. The Prime Minister said this right before we headed into one of the biggest monetary disasters we have had in the last 50 years. He literally said that he does not think about monetary policy, which would later make single moms unable to feed their families and workers unable to put gas in their cars. It is unbelievable that he does not think about monetary policy. Perhaps he should think again.

As we talk about Bill C-30, it is important to put some context around the bill, and we need to start with the relationship between the economy and the government. Oftentimes, I find they unfortunately get confused in this House. We must first, as our bedrock, ensure that the goods and services produced in this economy, the wealth and prosperity of this nation, are primarily the responsibility of our businesses and workers.

It is through the delivery of those services and the production of goods that our country generates its value. When a company is able to produce more goods and deliver more services, or in other words increase our productivity, the prosperity of the nation increases. The secret of this, which is not often mentioned in this House, is that it is the most vulnerable who often benefit the most when the prosperity of the nation increases, and they suffer the most, as has happened in the last couple of years, when prosperity is under assault, this time by inflation.

A country can produce a modest, temporary and artificial increase in economic performance through monetary policy and the printing of money. When the government spends and spends on a spending spree funded by the printing of money, there is an initial exuberance that results as Canadians see money coming into their bank accounts. However, this exuberance is quickly replaced by disillusion as they realize the cost of everything has increased and benefits are now replaced by the stubborn and corrosive impact of inflation, which continues. Once it is out of the box, inflation runs and runs, eroding savings, eroding wages and eroding the pensions of seniors.

The true path to a more prosperous nation is not through the printing of money. It is through the creation of value. Specifically, we need to increase our productivity. When a nation can produce more goods and deliver more services more efficiently and effectively, it drives real value that increases the wages of workers and, dare I say it, increases the profits of businesses. It also creates jobs.

Unfortunately, the government appears bent on doing everything it can to reduce the productivity of businesses and workers, and we see the result of seven years of Liberal governments. Food inflation is at over 10%. It is 10.8%, to be precise. That is causing real-life struggles. Outside the comfort and shelter of these walls, there are people who will go to bed tonight hungry, and probably many more people than in the last decade or two decades. That is because of the impact of a Prime Minister who does not think about monetary policy.

Food inflation at 10.8% has caused a 20% increase in the last two years in the use of food banks. Think about that. Some 20% more Canadians are going to food banks now than did two years ago. In addition to that, 20% of Canadians have had to make changes in their diets. About 8% of Canadians out there are skipping meals. This challenge is not just for adults but for children. In fact, people who have children are now three times more likely to go to a food bank than those who do not. This is making life more difficult for all Canadians and the most vulnerable, and children are among them.

It is not that Bill C-30 is a wrong step. It is just unfortunately too little too late, as it were. I will be supporting this legislation because it is going in the right direction, but let us look at, first, the fact that it is months behind when any type of relief was needed. Second, let us look at the quantum or the amounts of that.

Keeping in mind the statistic that food inflation is up over 10%, it is increasing the amount that families spend on food by over $1,300 a year. This GST/HST temporary relief, according to the finance minister, who went before the committee, will create somewhere between $450 and $500 in benefits for the families that are eligible. However, as we have heard throughout this House, many are not. This is nowhere near the amount of relief needed. Ultimately, that relief will come from our workers and businesses, but they need to be empowered, not penalized.

Thomas Sowell once famously wrote that he never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money we have earned but not greed to want to take money that other people have earned. That is a lesson the government needs to hear loud and clear.

Some will say, and it was even in the news in the U.K., that tax relief is inflationary. I am here to say that when done correctly, it is not. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what happens when the government spends and is funded by debt or the printing of money. I will give four examples.

When John F. Kennedy cut taxes in 1963, the inflation rate the year before a massive tax cut in post-world war United States was 1.2%. In the year after his tax cuts, it was 1.28%. When Ronald Reagan introduced in the United States a massive tax cut in 1981, it came into effect in 1982. In 1981, the inflation rate was 6.13%, and the inflation rate in 1984 was 4.3%. That is a decrease of 2% after massive tax cuts. Once again the Reagan administration cut taxes in 1986. In the year before, the inflation rate was 3.9%, and in the year after, it was 3.65%. When Prime Minister Harper reduced the GST, the inflation rate in 2007 was 2.1% and the inflation rate in 2009 was 0.3%.

Inflation is not fuelled by tax relief. What is fuelled is our economy. We need to give more relief, and a great way to do it is to cancel the planned tax hikes that are coming into place. The government will triple the carbon tax by 2030, and starting this April, it will increase the taxation on nearly everything, which includes heating, gas and groceries. It is increasing the cost of everything. That, by definition, will increase inflation.

When we see Canadians working hard and trying to save what money they can, and when we have food inflation at 10%, is the government's response to reduce taxation? No, it is not. It is increasing the tax on paycheques starting April 1, and a sizable number of taxes will be increased. This is not the time for this. In my estimation, it is never the time to increase taxes given our current rates, but this is certainly not the time, as it will drive inflation and make our economy less productive.

When we look at what we need at the end of the day in order to solve this affordability crisis, we need to not drive artificial monetary policy through the printing of money, as we have seen what this can create. We do not need more government spending funded by the printing of money. We need our economy to increase its productivity. How we do that is by supporting our workers, empowering our businesses, supporting all Canadians, getting the government's hands out of their pockets and, instead, giving them a helping hand by reducing their burden in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing today is universal support for Canadians at a time of need and inflation. Unfortunately, there are people exploiting the situation.

I will convey a text that I just received. It says, “You can now claim your GST rebate. Reply ‘yes’ to receive your payment.” After conferring with the CRA, it made very clear that it would never send a text like that. Scammers are fast and started sending texts right after the announcement was made about the GST. CRA is aware that there is something circulating and it has increased scam awareness messaging on all channels.

I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts about the types of people who exploit situations such as this. We should be warning constituents that there are scams out there.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that there are people out there doing this. Those folks should be held to account. That is why I am proud to be part of the law and order party. I do appreciate the member calling that out.

Being the former shadow minister for national revenue, I unfortunately became familiar with the many scammers out there. The CRA will not ask for anyone's social insurance number or bank information through email. When in doubt, pick up the phone, call the CRA and confirm it before providing any type of information. People can talk to those they trust. They can call their MP's office and we will be happy to help sort it out. I have seen way too many seniors and others taken advantage of this way.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South on his speech. I hold him in high regard as a colleague. I had the opportunity to work with him in the previous Parliament on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

There are things in his speech that I agree with, and others that I do not agree with. I agree that this is too little too late. In the last federal budget, there were no special measures to help seniors, low-income Canadians or more vulnerable Canadians.

Here is the thing I do not agree with. The Conservative Party talks a lot about inflation and monetary policy. The Bloc Québécois is against populism. We strongly believe that the Bank of Canada, the central bank, should be independent of any political authority. In the last Conservative Party leadership race, we often heard the hon. member for Carleton, now the leader of the Conservative Party, say that he wanted to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He is sending the wrong message. These are dangerous words.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that the central bank should be independent of all political influence, and if not, why not.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to acknowledge that the Bank of Canada got it wrong. It said that inflation was transitory and it was not. It said that inflation would not increase and it did. Our leader, who puts people first and thinks about monetary policy, got it right. That should be on the record. He was scoffed at. He was laughed at by the Bloc and other members of the elite saying that there would be no inflation. Well, guess what. We have food inflation at 10% and that should not be acceptable to Canadians or anyone.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my friend from Northumberland—Peterborough South supports the relief measure in this bill. He noted that it is months late, and we would agree with him on that. I would ask where he was when we were calling for it back in May.

This is targeted relief for the people most affected by inflation. There is another measure in another bill that is also targeted relief for the people across our country most affected by inflation. The revenue for each of these measures comes from the same fund. These are very similar measures, yet the Conservative Party is voting for one and not the other.

I wonder if he could explain to me why he is not voting to support the increase in the Canada housing benefit?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's tax-and-spend policies will create nothing but more inflation. As we are seeing, the initial exuberance of government spending will quickly be eroded by the corrosive impacts of inflation. If we want to make people poor, then let us spend more money and print more money.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to take part in the debate today. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I look forward to his comments.

The cost of living relief act is what we are talking about and how we help with affordability for Canadians who are facing the inflation we are now seeing as a result of global inflation as well as what has happened as a result of COVID-19.

When we went into COVID-19, one of the things that, early on, our government was focused on was setting Canada up for success on the other side of COVID, to make sure that Canadians would be able to return to their jobs through things like the wage subsidy program and keeping a relationship between the employer and the employee so that when jobs came back the employee would still be on their files. The CERB was to make sure that people who were really facing a tough time, those whose incomes had dropped and independent business owners, in particular, could get through what we were facing collectively as a society around the world with the global pandemic.

This bill is looking at what we do, going forward, now that we have protected our economy and have economic growth but have many people who are not participating in the success that other Canadians are taking part in. The once-in-a-generation COVID-19 pandemic has impacted other countries such as China, with its zero COVID policies. On top of that, there is the illegal invasion by Russia in Ukraine.

Here at home we have had housing prices skyrocketing so that we have had to work with the Bank of Canada, which focuses on monetary policy while we are focused on fiscal policy. The monetary policy that the Bank of Canada, which is an independent organization, has put in place is to increase interest rates, which almost immediately brought down the house price acceleration that we saw last year and even into early this year.

The inflation that we are seeing overall has come from the supply side. People are having trouble hiring and they are having trouble getting components out of their supply chains. Around the world, it is something that everybody is facing. In Canada, we have been able to temper that through good policy, with the government looking at inflation that peaked in June at 8.1% and has come down to 7%. Other countries are still on the increase. The United States at 8.3%, the United Kingdom at 9.9%, and Germany at 7.9% are all at higher inflation rates than Canada faces.

However, it does nothing for Canadians to say, “Yes, but the other guys are worse than we are.” This is why we are introducing the affordability plan. It is a targeted suite of programs of $12.1 billion that are being introduced this year, including doubling the GST credit for the next six months.

As monetary policy hopefully brings inflation back down toward the 2% target that the Bank of Canada has, we have to have something that bridges us through the hump that we are going through right now. This measure is Bill C-30, which would make life more affordable for Canadians. As an illustration, some of the measures that the plan is working on to fight inflation are to help with access to dental care and with the rental costs people are facing. There are parts of the bill that will be coming back to the House, hopefully in the next few days, and passing quickly so that Canadians will have access to other supports. As has been mentioned in the debate today, all of these things are there to help people who are vulnerable and who are being impacted by the inflation we are all going through.

For more than three decades, the Bank of Canada has had the mandate to tackle inflation here in Canada, and our government reaffirmed this central mandate last December. As the Bank of Canada is working on inflation and bringing it down, we have to work on the impacts on Canadians who are facing higher interest rates, the higher food costs that have been mentioned in the debate this morning and the other higher living costs that we have.

As we get down toward the 2%, and it is really the bank's job to help us get there, we have to look at the supply route constraints that are also impacting businesses and the labour shortages. How do we help businesses find the workers they need with the right skills? How do we help the people who are looking for jobs get those skills, so that they align with the needs of the businesses? The better we do this and the faster we do this, the better Canada will be positioned to continue the growth curve we are on.

The last recession I remember was the 2008 major recession. We just coasted on the other side of it, and we did not have economic growth. The result of that was that we fell behind. We are now in a position to continue our leadership position in growth in the world and provide clean technology jobs and the jobs of tomorrow around climate change solutions, nanotechnologies and emerging technologies, but in order to do that we need labour.

To rebuild communities that have been ravaged by the impacts of climate change, like the communities in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, we need skilled trade workers, so we have to work as a government to help position people for success to get into those projects. In Guelph we have had six projects recently announced, with $45 million to create 263 housing units. Those housing units are being built, but it is a strain on the local labour. In fact, we have one crew that is in Guelph from Prince Edward Island doing steel work, and they are doing it quickly because they want to go home. There is a local benefit to our getting some labour force in Guelph to help us build the housing as well as help the communities in Atlantic Canada that need the help they need on the economic front.

The plan we have is rooted in fiscal restraint. We are looking at how we can provide supports without fuelling inflation. The suite of measures we are putting forward through the affordability plan, like the GST credit for the next six months, are going to support Canadians with the cost of living without adding fuel to the fire of inflation.

We look at what other programs we are supporting in addition to the doubling of the GST credit. It is going to provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support for this year, and that is going to help 11 million individuals and families who already receive their tax credits through their tax filings. The relationship we have with Canadians through the Canada Revenue Agency helps us to deliver these programs.

We will also be delivering the Canada workers benefit to put up to another $2,400 into families' bank accounts this year. A 10% increase in old age security to help seniors over 75, which began in July, is providing up to $766 more for three million seniors this year. We will deliver 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 on the housing benefit. We are cutting child care fees by an average of 50% this year. Dental care for Canadians, hopefully getting passed through the House of Commons, for people earning less than $90,000 would provide hundreds of dollars to Canadian families this year. The indexation of inflation of benefits, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the federal minimum wage will carry us through normal economic times, when inflation is back down to the 2% level we are shooting for.

We are trying to manage the fiscal situation in an inflationary time by providing benefits to the people who really need them when they need them, and they need them now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph raised the Bank of Canada multiple times, as he also raised the ideas of helping struggling Canadians and the need to fight inflation. On March 11 of this year, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, wrote to the finance committee, and I am just going to take an excerpt from that:

According to the Bank's calculations, if the charge were to be removed from the three main fuel components of the consumer price index (gasoline, natural gas and fuel oil) it would reduce the inflation rate by 0.4 percentage points. In other words, if that policy had come into effect at the start of the year, January's inflation rate would have been 4.7% instead of 5.1%.

That is the governor saying that the carbon tax is inflationary. The member for Guelph said it is important to support struggling Canadians. Would he say exactly why he supports the government in tripling the carbon tax on gas, groceries and heat? Does he not believe this is a time to take a pause and give Canadians a break?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the price on pollution is going from $50 a tonne to $65 a tonne. In my math, that is not tripling.

When we look at the sustainability of the planet, we cannot separate the sustainability of the planet from economic sustainability and social sustainability. We need to support Canadians in all areas, economic, social and environmental, so that we still have a planet for future generations.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. Inflation did not fall out of the sky like a hot summer rain. It is the result of several factors, including external factors. One of these factors is very important: the supply chain.

It is important to understand that the war in Ukraine and the global pandemic disrupted the supply chain. Many of our companies rely on the availability of products or consumer goods.

The Bank of Canada observed that, during the summer, approximately 50% of companies found themselves facing a bottleneck. That means that their supply chain is blocked. They are awaiting parts to be able to resume production.

There is a way of fixing this and ensuring fewer inflationary shocks. It is by making sure that our supply chain is more flexible, agile and resilient.

Does my colleague agree that the government should be doing more to make sure that we are less dependent on the products we need to import from foreign countries?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques not only for that question but for the questions he has posed throughout the day. They are always very thoughtful questions.

One of the lessons of COVID was that we have to have more reliance on Canadian supply chains. When it came to getting PPE and things to help people in medical need in Canada, having that product built in Canada made a lot of sense as supply chains from other countries were cut off. I agree 100% that we have to look at developing business in Canada and developing innovation in Canada so that we can get the economic benefit from it, as well as that security going forward.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments the member just made about the Canadian supply chain. I want the member to know that in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam there was a supplier that retooled their factory instantly to be able to create PPE, but they were unable to get a contract from the Canadian government. I also know of vaccine suppliers in the country who were not identified by the government. In fact, I think there was a lack of coordination on the government side to even know who was producing PPE and vaccines here in Canada. That is what I understand.

Would the member like to share some thoughts on why Canadian suppliers of PPE and even vaccines were not able to get contracts with the government?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Buyandsell.gc.ca network is something I used during COVID, when I had businesses calling me in Guelph asking how they could get into the supply chain and how they could provide solutions for the government. There was one call that was from a known Conservative and we have disagreed on many things, but he was able to get a contract to provide parts for ventilators going into Toronto with another partner from Montreal.

The Buyandsell.gc.ca network is something that I have recommended to my constituents. I would say to the hon. member across the way that it would be a great source for her constituents as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, a very important piece of legislation that attempts to relieve some of the pressure being put on individuals right now in our country, in particular those who are struggling the most. The individuals who will receive this GST credit will, no doubt, be people who immediately use this money for very important needs that they have. It is money that will go directly back into our economy. Despite some of the things we have heard about contributing to inflation, the economists have pretty much resoundingly asserted that such a measure is not going to lead to inflation or, at least, is so marginal that it will be unnoticeable.

I want to focus my comments today on addressing some of what I have heard said in the House. In particular, I want to talk a bit about what I heard the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South talk about a few minutes ago and then go to some comments that I heard from the member for Simcoe North even earlier.

First of all, I think it is very interesting that all of the conversations or all of the discussion that has been happening today regarding Bill C-30, from the Conservatives anyhow, spent very little time actually talking about the bill. Instead, they want to use the slogans they have recently come up with, such as “triple, triple, triple”. I am still trying to wrap my head around why that is supposed to be so funny. I do not understand how that works, but perhaps that line was given to everybody by the leader's office and it is their responsibility to deliver it repeatedly in this place.

The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South was not talking about the bill. He went on a long tangent from the discussion about why it is so important that the government not spend money right now, because it is leading to inflation. He was basically saying that when the government spends more, it leads to more inflation, and so on and so forth.

Just putting aside for a second his argument on that, I would remind him that my understanding, at least, is that Conservatives are voting in favour of this bill. They are voting in favour of this spending. For the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South to stand there for 10 minutes and talk about government spending leading to inflation and how the government should not be spending while on the topic of a bill about spending that he supports is extremely rich and, I think, underscores the hypocrisy that we hear over and over from Conservatives in this House. It is just on constant repeat, the way that they come out and say one thing but do another. I do not know if this is due to the new leadership of the crypto king from Carleton or what it is exactly, but it is certainly—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is one thing to actually refer to people using a derogatory term, which is a violation of Standing Order 18, but using other terms to describe members in here is something that is unconscionable. That individual should apologize and resign.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the chair does not find the term “Justinflation” to be offensive but does find the term “crypto king” to be offensive, then I think we really have to go back and look at the rules.

However, I will leave it up to you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

How about if we refer to one another by our actual riding names? If we stick to that, we will stay out of trouble.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about crypto, since we are on the topic.

With regard to the member for Simcoe North, I found it just astounding when, moments ago in the House, the Bloc Québécois member asked him a very good question about his party's position on crypto. I want to thank the member for Simcoe North for doing what I have been asking the Leader of the Opposition to do for a long time, which was to explain the Conservatives' policy on cryptocurrency.

Instead of completely avoiding the question from the member from the Bloc, the member for Simcoe North tried to address it, which I think was very admirable of him.

What did he say? He basically said this: First of all, he compared Canada to Venezuela, saying that, well, if we look at countries like Venezuela, people have decided to hedge their bets against their currency by investing in cryptocurrency.

Can we extrapolate, then, the objective of the Leader of the Opposition? When he made those comments months ago about cryptocurrency, he was basically telling the Canadian people to not trust the Canadian dollar and to put their money into cryptocurrency and bet against the Canadian dollar. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition was doing.

I hand it to the member for Simcoe North for actually standing up and saying what he thinks, because the rest of them would not do it.

This is what we are seeing, so now we get to start to understand a bit of the picture of what is going on. We have the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the leader of the official opposition, the individual whom I crown as the king of cryptocurrency, in the House, in public, telling Canadians—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

Let us just refer to the member for Carleton or to the member for Kingston and the Islands or just His Majesty's official opposition, or something like that.

I am getting a lot of noise. I want to keep the noise in the House down to a minimum, because we are coming up to question period. I just want to make sure we all take our seats at a reasonable time and keep it down a little.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are always going to get a lot of noise from that side when I am speaking, regardless of what I say. I will leave it to you and to chair occupants to rule, because you do a very good job of that. I have a lot of respect for you, but I do not think it is unprecedented that we describe the actions of people in this room based on terms like that. As a matter of fact, probably the one who is the most egregious—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, now the member for Kingston and the Islands is justifying what he is doing. That is not relevant to the bill at hand. He should be sticking to what is relevant.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have relevancy called. We are running out of time. We want to get at least one more person in here.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, nobody is more egregious with regard to calling people names based on actions that they do than the leader of the official opposition during his 22 years or however long he has been in the House.

Nonetheless, the reality is that what we discovered in the House today, thanks to the member for Simcoe North, is that the Conservatives are actively encouraging Canadians to hedge against the Canadian dollar by investing in cryptocurrency.

I do not think this is responsible for any member of Parliament to do, let alone the leader of the official opposition in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his timely comments about the need for this legislation and how it is going to help hard-working Canadians who are suffering as a result of inflation.

I have also heard from a lot of people who took the advice of the Leader of the Opposition on cryptocurrency because somehow they thought it was a legitimate way of investing their money. They have, unfortunately, lost a lot of money.

Can the member for Kingston and the Islands tell us why that advice was so dangerous and how it has impacted the lives of so many Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note, for starters, that this is the second time in a row that I have given a speech and both this time and the last time I spoke, no Conservative got up to ask me a question. As we know, the first opportunity to ask a question goes to the Conservatives. I just want them to know that I certainly take that as a compliment.

To the question that the member asked me about those who may have taken the advice, the Leader of the Opposition is seemingly unaware of the fact that his words have consequences. When he says something in the position that he is in or in the position that he was seeking to be in at the time, people will listen.

Those who did listen to him and chose to invest in cryptocurrency at the time will have seen their life savings absolutely diminish, and he does not recognize that his words can transpire into those actual actions, but it does happen.

For those who did take his advice and invest, I feel sorry that they were put in that position, and I deeply regret that the Leader of the Opposition, who was at the time the candidate seeking to be the leader, made those comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

My colleague made a point about leadership and people listening to leaders. A motion was put forward in this very House yesterday, on which we should all have shown leadership, with respect to declaring an organization as a criminal or terrorist organization. That was shot down and given a nay by the Liberals, so it is a bit rich for them to talk about leading by example when that just happened yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member asked me that question because it gives me an opportunity to once again talk about the games the members on that side of the House play. They brought forward a motion with three parts to it. This is what the Conservatives do. They insert a poison pill into it, knowing that we cannot vote in favour of it. In this case, the second clause was to chastise the government over an issue. They did this just so this member could get up later on and ask the exact question he did.

The Conservatives know exactly what they are up to. They know the games they play in this House. If the member actually cared, like he says he does, the Conservatives would have brought forward a straightforward motion that did not include a poison pill, and he probably would have seen a lot—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be in this place, we must use parliamentary language. Imputing thoughts of not caring on another member is completely unparliamentary.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth certainly hurts. We can see the number of times the Conservatives get up to try to interrupt me when I am speaking. What they do not understand, and it has been going on for three years now, is the more they do it, the more it encourages me, so they really have to reassess their position on this.

With respect to the member's point, had the Conservatives brought forward a simple motion that addressed exactly what he just said, I am sure it would have gone over much better on this side of the House than the way they introduced it, and he knows that.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can bring the debate back to Bill C-30 and the income support gaps that are hurting people right now in Canada.

These are short-term emergency income support gap measures that the New Democrats support. We know people need help with rent and food. I want to ask the member specifically about the long-term measures that need to be taken, because more Canadians are falling into poverty and homelessness. I speak specifically about persons with disabilities right now. Is this House going to see Bill C-22 come back this week?

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last few decades the disparity between the haves and the have-nots has certainly been growing, and it is incumbent upon us to find ways to try to reduce that. That is why we increased taxes on the richest 1% when we were first elected and reduced taxes for the middle class. That is why we brought in $10-a-day child care. That is why we continue to strengthen the various social programs we have.

With respect to the member's question, I would like nothing more than to see that bill, which is intended for the disabled communities in Canada, move expeditiously through this House, go to committee and come back here so that we can implement it and bring it into law. I hope and have faith that all members in this House can put partisanship aside for one issue like this.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are laughing right now. This is about helping some of the most vulnerable people in our country and they are laughing, so I guess the partisanship will not be put aside.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Banff—Airdrie.

It is really hard to talk to people in my community right now because they are really struggling. They are struggling so hard to make ends meet. I was at the grocery store a couple of weeks ago, and I watched a woman from my community in the bakery aisle take a loaf of bread, look at it, put it back on the shelf, take it again, look at it and put it back on the shelf again. I knew what she was doing. She was asking herself if she could afford it.

That is the crisis our country is facing right now, and that is the level of gravity each of us should be treating the country's finances and our economic policy with right now. People in our country are asking themselves if they can afford to put another loaf of bread in their cart. I have to ask myself why, and I really want to direct this to the Liberal backbench. Why are the liberals raising taxes right now? Why would they do this? Why would they do this to that woman who is trying to figure out if she can afford an extra loaf of bread this week?

There is no reason for the government to raise taxes, yet yesterday that is what the government, the Liberals, voted to do. They voted to raise taxes. Every single member of the Liberal backbench has the ability in their caucus meetings or on their own social media platforms to push back and hold the government to account just as much as I do. We all have that right.

In January, small business owners and employers should not need to be worried about their payroll taxes increasing. Canadians, including that woman who is thinking about whether she can afford that extra loaf of bread, should not be thinking about whether their take-home pay is going to go down because the government is taking more money off paycheques. It is ludicrous. We are in a generational inflation crisis.

This is something many Canadians have never had to deal with. Before this crisis even started, the Canadian economy was on the brink. We are seeing a mental health crisis and a housing crisis, and what are the Liberals doing? They want to raise taxes. It is not just the payroll tax the Liberals voted to raise. It is also voting to raise taxes on something that will increase the cost of everything.

Let us talk about a loaf of bread. The way the Liberals and the Prime Minister have approached dealing with inflation is by saying, “Okay, Canadians, you have a loaf of bread. We are going to take it from you and give you back the crumbs.” This is what we are debating here today, and that is not right, but let us talk about that loaf of bread.

For a Canadian farmer who is growing the wheat for that bread, the Liberals want to raise taxes on the power that goes into drying that grain. What does that do to the cost of a loaf of bread? It increases it at a time when we cannot afford it and when people are asking if they can put another loaf of bread in their cart.

What about when that grain is dry? How does that grain magically get to a processing plant? It is transported. If it is transported in a truck, the fuel that goes to getting that grain to a processing plant is going to increase with this tax increase. Who pays for that? It is the person who is eventually going to buy that loaf of bread.

Once the manufacturing plant that mills the flour, which might be looking to relocate because of payroll taxes and tax increases on their input costs, such as electricity, has somehow managed to mill that flour, then the flour needs to be transported somewhere else. What is going to happen? The tax on that gas will be increased too next year, in the middle of an inflationary crisis, when people are struggling to choose whether to put another loaf of bread in their cart.

Then how is that loaf of bread going to get to the grocery store? How does that happen? It does not magically happen. It needs to be transported, again using something the Liberals are increasing the cost of. They are again raising taxes on this. Of course that increase in taxes goes through the entire system. It raises the cost of everything.

The other thing is that the Liberals try to tell people that somehow that bit of grain, that loaf of bread, can magically get from one place to another because they failed to put any sort of substitute good for carbon on the market, in spite of raising these taxes.

What have they done instead? They have raised the costs of these goods. They have made it harder for that woman to choose whether or not she is going to put that loaf of bread in her cart. They have done this while making us more dependent on countries such as Iran and Russia for their oil. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen under the government. It has to stop.

The Liberal backbench members should hold their leader to account. One of them actually said something that made sense. They were quoted in a news article after their caucus meeting, and they said something to the effect that they wished the leadership of their party would stop being so woke and focus on inflation. Now is the time.

Every single one of their community members is struggling with that question of whether or not to put another loaf of bread in their cart, and they do not want silence. Courage is lacking in that backbench right now. We should not be raising taxes. The Liberals had an opportunity yesterday to prevent the raising of taxes, yet what did they do? They voted to raise taxes. It has to stop. This is not the time to do that.

Some will say that they are spending money on x, y, and z. Let us talk about what the Liberals have been spending money on. There was a federal election in 2021 that got us a polarized electorate. It did not do anything else for the Liberals. We just found out that the Liberals spent a half a billion dollars making it easier for people in upstate New York to jump the immigration queue in Canada. The other thing the Liberals have done is spend how much money, and on what? It takes two, three, four, five, six months to get a passport, so we are seeing not only the government raise taxes in the middle of an inflationary crisis, but also service delivery being worse. This is it, and that is not good government.

What we have here is a scandal-plagued government that does not give a rip about the price of bread. The government members do not give a rip. They do not understand what people in my community or any of their communities are going through to try to make ends meet after filling up their tank of gas.

It is beyond me that the Liberals would raise taxes right now, and we will fight back. This is crazy. They should not be raising taxes in the middle of an inflationary crisis. I would ask them to give their heads a shake. This is not a game. That is what each of the members of the Liberal backbench should be saying. The Liberals have to do something to actually address the inflationary crisis, and taking Canadians' loaves of bread, trying to give them a few crumbs back and saying it is good enough is not good enough. It has to stop.

Canadians are sharing this message. Even people who voted for the Liberals in the past have said they have had enough, as one of their backbench said, of this woke stuff. They want solutions. They want a solution to the problem.

We should have energy sovereignty. We should not be waiting for OPEC+ to raise or lower production and raise the cost of energy on us because we do not have energy sovereignty here. The Liberals should be addressing the labour shortage instead of making it easier for people in upstate New York to skip the line into this country. They should be addressing that we have the poorest levels of service in government programs in generations, all while it is impossible for people to make ends meet.

We should all have had enough with the cabinet and the government's failed approach to economic growth while our country stares down the barrel of a looming recession, and it is the government's problem. It has failed to repatriate manufacturing. It has failed to inspire investment in our country. It is making it harder for women in my community to put loaves of bread in their cart.

I have had enough. People in this place have had enough, and people across the country have had enough. Tomorrow morning is their caucus meeting, so I challenge every Liberal backbencher here today to stand up and say what that one person said off the record to a reporter: Enough with the woke shit.

Mr. Speaker, I take that back. I apologize immediately for my unparliamentary language. I am very sorry.

Enough with the woke stuff and let us get on with the plan. It is right to be passionate with this. We have to do better things to protect Canadians from inflation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the retraction.

We will move on to questions and comments with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's candour. She certainly speaks with passion, and sometimes I wish I could use language like that in here too, even if just accidentally.

My question is in relation to the member's private member's bill. This member has a private member's bill on cryptocurrency. We were actually supposed to debate it the first day that the House resumed, and for some reason we did not. It got bumped.

I understand that the member's private member's bill on cryptocurrency is coming up in the next couple of days. I wonder if she could provide some insight into what her bill is about, to inform the House.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to talk to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, who actually holds digital assets, as revealed in his ethics disclosure. I would also invite him to talk to the Minister of Finance, who approved tens of thousands of dollars for a crypto-trading platform in her home riding.

The government has talked a big game on the digital economy and now, when we are staring down the barrel of a recession, is trying to score cheap political points, when we should be trying to grow jobs through a framework that protects investors and consumers while allowing the economy to grow. However, the government does not get it, and that is a shame.

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 third time and passed.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I used to serve as a volunteer firefighter in my community. However, one does not need to be a firefighter to know that one cannot put out a fire by pouring more gas on it. That is exactly what the Liberals have done.

They have created the worst cost of living crisis by overspending the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians, causing a rapid increase in inflation. With inflation at a staggering 7% and economists warning about an impending economic recession, the Liberals continue to spend.

Many contend that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Here we are, with a government that overspends Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars, causing inflation. It then continues to spend while claiming that it is helping.

It has lost the plot. As we have learned recently, the Prime Minister enjoys plunging from great heights. I just wish he did not enjoy doing the same thing to the Canadian economy. The Prime Minister's determination to plunge the Canadian economy to record lows is mirrored by the enthusiasm that he showed when he recently went bungee jumping in Chelsea.

Now, the Prime Minister's recent bungee jumping trip was not brave or funny or relatable. It was actually just a metaphor for what he is doing to the Canadian economy, which is making it do a nosedive.

While the Prime Minister laughs and plays around, 23% of Canadians have reported eating less than they should have because of rising inflation at the grocery store, and 53% of Canadian households are within $200 or less of financial insolvency. Despite working hard, many Canadians have nothing to show for it. Many more are forced to walk a financial tightrope.

Continued spending will only worsen the existing crisis and squeeze even more Canadian families into financial ruin. Simultaneously, spending is racking up our national debt, which has more than doubled to almost $1.2 trillion under this Liberal government, with their spending accounting for more spending than all previous governments in Canadian history. They have actually put more onto the national debt than all other governments in this country's history combined.

That amounts to $32,000 of debt for each and every Canadian. Every hour, that debt increases by over $6 million. Every day, it increases by $144 million. Every month, we pay 2 billion dollars' worth of interest on that debt.

What exactly is the government's plan to pay down the debt they have created? Someone needs to be the adult in the room here and say that enough is enough. Perpetual spending with no end in sight is a reckless economic policy with dire consequences for this and for many future generations.

Now, with this so-called cost of living bill, finally the Liberals are at least admitting that their approach has not worked and that Canadians are suffering as a result.

Conservatives know that the government continues to collect increased GST revenue because of inflation and high gas prices. When the Parliamentary Budget Office releases its upcoming report, we will see just how much they have collected while Canadians were being forced to choose between food and fuel.

At a time when so many Canadians are struggling with high prices, the Liberal government should not be profiteering off of the crisis, especially because gas is so critical to our increasingly vulnerable supply chains, our farmers and our job-creating industries. That is why, in March, Conservatives put forward a motion to suspend the government's collection of GST on fuel. I was disheartened that not a single Liberal or NDP member voted in favour of this much-needed relief.

At least they are coming around a little now. However, the proposal in this bill is too little, too late for the Canadians who need it the most, and it is certainly a poor substitute for Conservative tax relief proposals.

First of all, what is included in this bill is only a temporary measure that lasts for only six months. I am certainly not naive enough to believe that the Liberal government is going to be able to clean up the inflation crisis that it has created and have things back to normal in that six months.

This bill also only applies to individuals who make over $49,200 and families with children that have a household income of under $58,500. Believe me, there are individuals making over $49,200 who are certainly struggling. There are even more families with children making over $58,000 that are also struggling.

More than 70% of families with children would not be eligible for this support. Even for those that are, this measure certainly falls short. For a qualifying family of four, this measure would only work out to about $77 a month. That is not even $20 per family member. It is certainly not enough to displace the cost of inflation.

In the past few weeks, Conservatives have come together and have continued to put forward realistic, responsible proposals that would help to fix the cost of living crisis. Conservatives know that one of the biggest financial burdens facing Canadians right now is the unpredictable and ever-increasing price of gas, due in part to the existing Liberal carbon tax. For many Canadians, especially rural Canadians and business owners, owning and operating a gas-powered vehicle is not a choice. It is an absolute necessity. However, the out-of-touch government continues to impose a punitive tax on them, intending to make them suffer financially. That is what it is intended to do, make them suffer financially for what Liberals consider an immoral choice, to drive a truck or a car.

When the Conservatives learned that the government was planning to go ahead with its plan to triple the carbon tax on Canadians in the middle of this affordability crisis, we fought back. Last week, in the House of Commons, we put forward a motion calling on the Liberals to have some compassion for Canadians who were struggling and cancel their plan to triple the carbon tax. Sadly, not a single member of the Liberal caucus joined us on that motion.

Similarly, Conservatives put forward a motion asking the Liberal government to commit to no new taxes on gas, groceries, home heating and paycheques. Given that our country is in an economic crisis and people are already struggling as it is, we think that would be a pretty easy motion to support. I do not think it was a very big ask at all. We were only asking the government not to increase taxes on the necessities that Canadians need to keep alive, to keep warm and to keep fed. However, the Liberals voted against our motion.

What message are the Liberals sending to Canadians? Are they planning even more tax hikes? Do they really believe that now, of all times, is a good time to raise taxes on Canadians even further?

Our party has made it clear that a Conservative government would fight inflation, fix the cost of living crisis and pay down the national debt by adhering to a responsible pay-as-you-go system. Under this system, our government would find a dollar in savings for taxpayers for every government dollar spent, returning Canada to fiscal responsibility. A Conservative government would reflect on the financial values that Canadians practice in their everyday lives by budgeting responsibly and by ensuring that we are spending wisely, finding savings wherever possible.

I do not think it is too much to ask that governments conduct themselves in the same way that we expect all Canadians to conduct themselves. Canadians, when there are tough times, sometimes have a need to put a little money on their credit card. Maybe the roof springs a leak right when they lose a job. They might have to take on a little debt just to cover that. However, once they are employed again, they are going to try to pay down that debt. That is always the first thing any Canadian would do, try to pay down the debt. Then they would undertake whatever other spending they might think is necessary for their household. They would try to pay down that debt and try to make the prudent choices.

I do not think it is too much to ask that governments do the same thing. That money comes from somewhere. It comes from Canadians. It is their hard-earned tax dollars. It is money that Canadians have worked hard to earn, to help make sure that they meet the needs of themselves and their families. Every dollar that the government takes from those Canadian families needs to be done with the mindset in government that it is only taking what is absolutely needed for the core services that government provides and to make sure that money is spent appropriately and wisely, because the government is taking away the opportunity for Canadian to make choices for themselves with their own money, so all we expect is for the government to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's comments, I think it is important that we recognize that we are debating Bill C-30, a bill that will give 11 million people in Canada a break with respect to the GST and put more money into their pockets. Every member of the House of Commons today is supporting Bill C-30. We could send a very strong and powerful message to Canadians and pass this legislation. The speech the member gave could have been given on Bill C-31, which is a bill the Conservatives oppose.

I wonder if the member could comment on this from his perspective. If he sees a bill he likes and he wants to help Canadians, should we pass it through and have more debate on Bill C-31, so we can find out what the differences are between the two sides, the governing and opposition parties. Would he agree?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member wants to know what the difference is between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I can tell him that very clearly.

The Conservatives want to ensure we take good care of the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. We want to make sure we are putting Canadians first and not making life more difficult for them through the kinds of things we have seen from the Liberal government. That is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

We are talking about a bill that does have the support of everyone in the House. I heard it put really well by one of my colleagues earlier today. If taxpayers have a loaf of bread, the government is going to take that bread from them and give them just a few crumbs back. That is what the government is doing. It has no compassion and no understanding of what Canadians are dealing with.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear my hon. colleague say that all parties in the House will support this bill, but I was taken aback by his attempt to make it seem like this amount of money is inconsequential. It is easy for a member of Parliament, who makes a minimum of $185,000 a year, to stand in the House to say that $500 does not mean much to someone. My daughter is an adult with special needs. She has friends who live on $15,000 a year. For someone who is earning $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year, that $500 is incredibly significant.

I wonder if the member could speak to that. Would he agree with me that giving temporary relief of $500 to help fight inflation to people who make under $40,000 or $50,000 a year can make a real difference in their lives?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would first point out that the member certainly misunderstood or misconstrued my comments. I understand that. He is simply trying to justify the fact that the NDP are trying to prop up a government that does not deserve to be propped up. He has to try to justify that somehow to his voters, so I get what he is trying to do, and it is his prerogative to do that.

Having said that, is the amount of money we are talking about here going to help people? Sure it will. That is why we are supporting it. Does it do enough? No, it certainly does not do enough. There are a lot of Canadians who will not receive any support from this. There are far better ways this could be done. That is what I was trying to point out in my speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Banff—Airdrie for keeping the focus on Canadians in his speech.

The Liberal member across the way was talking about Bill C-31, not Bill C-30. The Parliamentary Budget Officer will be doing an update next week on the cost of that, so I think it is important that we all wait and get that costing before we have a fair analysis of Bill C-31.

I want to reiterate the point that the member made that the government did not use the summer to do the hard work to find offsetting spending cuts so it could avoid the criticism of being more inflationary. I would like him to comment on how important it is that Canadians not only deserve support, but also have a government that does not fuel inflation and actually fights it.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member made a great point. There is no doubt that the spending the government has undertaken has led to more difficulties and more pain for Canadians with the inflation we have seen as a result of some of its actions. Canadians deserve a government that will consider what the effect would be on Canadians when it needs to spend money and try to find ways where it can find savings.

One of the policies the new leader of the Conservative Party, the Leader of the Opposition, has put forward is the idea that for every new dollar spent we find some savings, because we expect government to be run the same way we expect Canadians to run their households.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this important legislation today. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key priority for our government. The pandemic has been tough for everyone, and unfortunately one of the consequences has been inflation. This worldwide inflation problem has made affordability a real concern for many Canadians, including in my riding of Whitby, and especially for the most vulnerable.

We understand that there are those who are going through hard times, but this government has real solutions to the cost of living struggles of many Canadians. Overall, the government’s affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to the Canadians who need it most, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation.

The government’s affordability plan includes an enhanced Canada workers benefit that will put up to $2,400 more into the pockets of low-income families. There is a 10% increase in old age security for seniors over 75, which will provide more than $800 in new support to full pensioners over the first year and increase benefits for more than three million seniors.

We are also cutting regulated child care fees in half by the end of this year. We have doubled the Canada student grant until July 2023 and are waiving interest on Canada student loans through to March 2023. The main support programs, including the Canada child benefit, the GST tax credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are all indexed to inflation so those will be increasing as well.

Two weeks ago, the government tabled two important pieces of legislation in Parliament. The bills represent the latest suite of measures to support Canadians with the rising cost of living without adding to inflation. Bill C-31 would make it so that up to half a million children under 12 would be able to see a dentist, and low-income renters would receive a little extra breathing room with a $500 payment to help with the cost of rent.

The bill we are discussing today is Bill C-30, which would double the GST tax credit for six months. Doubling the GST credit would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit. That includes about nine million single individuals, almost two million couples and more than half of all Canadian seniors. Just think about that. Over half of all Canadian seniors are going to be supported by this measure.

The GST tax credit is indexed to inflation on an annual basis. For the July 2022 to June 2023 benefit year, the value of the GST credit grew by 2.4%. However, because these increases are based on the inflation rate from the prior year, the sharp rise in inflation in 2022 is not yet reflected in the GST credit payments that Canadians are currently receiving. This is why the extra top-up is the right thing to do at this particular time, because Canadians are not going to get the benefit of an increased GST tax credit payment until the following year. It is a good thing that we are topping it up.

Single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and seniors would receive an extra $225 on average. I have another example of how it would work. A single mother with one child and $30,000 in net income will receive $386.50 for the July through December 2022 period, and another payment of the same amount for the January through June 2023 period under the current GST credit. With the temporary doubling of the GST credit amounts for six months, she would receive an additional $386.50. In total, she would be receiving about $1,160 this benefit year through the GST credit.

A couple with two children and $35,000 in net income would receive $467 for the July through December 2022 period and another $467 for the January through June 2023 period under the current GST credit. With the temporary doubling of the GST credit amounts for six months, this family would receive an additional $467. In total, it would receive $1,401 this benefit year through the GST credit.

The proposed extra GST credit amounts would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump sum payment before the end of the year, pending, of course, the adoption of the legislation. This highlights the importance of getting this done as quickly as possible, as we all can agree Canadians are feeling the pressures of inflation and the cost of living increases.

Importantly, recipients would not need to apply for the additional payment, but should make sure to file their 2021 tax returns, if they have not done so already, to be able to receive the current credit and the additional payment. Bill C-30 and the other important measures I mentioned would deliver targeted support to the Canadians who need it most without adding unnecessary fuel to the fire and allow inflation to become entrenched. That is a major concern, and we do not want inflation to become entrenched. That is something that would in fact be counterproductive and make life more expensive for everyone for years to come.

However, we cannot compensate every single Canadian for rising costs driven by global events. To do so would make inflation worse. Bill C-30 is about balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion. This support is the right thing to do at the right time. Even as we deal with the very real challenges that the global economy is facing right now, it is important for us to take real comfort in the reality that Canada has a very strong economic foundation as we face these global challenges.

Canada has the lowest deficit this year in the G7. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and Canada’s AAA credit rating was reaffirmed this year by Moody's, S&P and DBRS. The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada’s recovery will be the second fastest in the G7 this year and next. That is a pretty good track record.

The government’s affordability plan has already been putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians who need it most. We will continue to provide timely support where it is needed most, all while maintaining fiscal discipline.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we certainly welcome and are pleased with this new GST credit, because the Bloc Québécois has been asking for it for several months and the government was refusing to listen.

That being said, my constituents, who are struggling to make ends meet, buy groceries every week, pay their rent every month and fill up regularly at the pump. How is it that the government has not yet thought to send households their GST rebate checks on a monthly basis, so they can receive the money quickly, at the same time they incur their costs?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite mentioned, just as constituents in my riding have shared with me, concerns about the cost of living, which are very real for Canadian families. Our government has put forward a whole suite of measures. There is the 50% reduction in child care fees, which is thousands of dollars per year to Canadian families with children. There is dental care for children under 12, rental assistance payments, financial assistance for those with disabilities, which will hopefully be passed in the House shortly, and a 10% increase in OAS for seniors over 75. We have doubled Canada student grants and waived interest on Canada student loans. CCB payments are going up, and the price on pollution has moved to direct quarterly payments. What more can we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow time for other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to quickly raise that students will actually be paying higher interest rates under the government. That is something that has recently been revealed. The member may want to consider his caucus talking about that.

The member talked about fiscal discipline. Conservatives are supporting this bill because it has targeted tax relief to help Canadians who are struggling right now. However, will the member recognize that right now the average family of four may receive $467, but they are going to be paying over $1,200 just in groceries alone? The Governor of the Bank of Canada has written to the finance committee saying that the carbon tax is an inflationary tax and that the government's plan to triple, triple, triple the carbon tax over the next few years is going to hit them the hardest, by paying more for groceries, gas and heat.

Does the member recognize that fiscal discipline means recognizing when people are at a breaking point?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really am at a loss for words with the incessant repetition of “triple, triple, triple” so many times in the House. It reminds me of a Tim Hortons drive-through. Maybe the Conservatives should stop their caffeine-induced rage farming over the climate plan we have and the price on pollution and rather focus on what Canadians really need, which is information and solutions.

To me, when I look at the price on pollution, it has moved to direct quarterly payments. Families in my ridings are getting $745 this year directly from the federal government. If we look at the whole package of supports, it is well beyond what families are paying extra at the grocery store or at the pump.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hear that from the Liberals all the time. They like to put out all sorts of numbers, and they put them out so much that people who are watching can hear all these big numbers, like the $1,000 they are going to get back, when in reality it is a much smaller number. They inflate that number, just like they inflate inflation and just like they inflate the taxes that are on these people. Unfortunately, taxes are going up and prices are going up. Seniors, I suspect, in the member's riding, after taking retirement, are going to turn around and now say, especially those in my riding, that they are going to have to go back to work because they cannot afford the cost of living anymore because of increased costs.

It is one thing to help out, and it is nice to see that, but the bottom line is that ending the taxes will help these people much faster.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the member opposite if he does not like the numbers the Liberal Party puts out, but they are factual and based in reality. Based on the many measures we have put out there, Canadian families are getting a whole package of supports in their time of need, everything from the Canada child benefit and a reduction in child care fees to direct quarterly payments for the price on pollution and the GST tax credit. When we put all those together, there are hundreds and even thousands of dollars that Canadian families are getting benefit from.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Whitby, for sharing his time with me. I am honoured to stand here on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation and say meegwetch.

This has been a somewhat frustrating debate, as many speakers have noted. There is unanimous support in this place for Bill C-30, yet there are things we want to debate. For my part, I would just like to say that I support Bill C-30 because Canadians need help. Raising and doubling the GST rebate that would go to lowest-income Canadians would amount to $2.5 billion in total, and it would reach, in small amounts, 11 million Canadians. That is not something to sneeze at. People want help, and as my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said moments ago, $500 is not a small amount of money when one is really up against it. It will make a difference, and that is why I will vote for this.

We also have Bill C-31 that would provide a one-time only payment of $500 to help low-income renters as well as begin the really important work toward including dental care in our health care system, an idea originally proposed by the Green Party of Canada.

There is nothing not to like in this bill, but there is much to talk about because it does not address really large problems like what happens if we go into a recession. What if this inflationary problem is not solved by what the Bank of Canada has done in raising rates? The rate hikes have been quite dramatic. What if the rate hikes push us into a recession? That is a reasonable thing to ask, since that has happened many times before. As a matter of fact, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' economist David Macdonald, every time over the last 60 years that rate hikes have been used to address inflation, recession has occurred.

This really is a very difficult situation because we must also face international crises, including the climate change crisis, the pandemic, and the war between Russia and Ukraine.

These are complex problems, but those debating in this place, and for obvious reasons political parties, want short, simple bumper sticker solutions that convey support for their party by being definitive and being clear. It reminds me so much of the debate in this place over Bill C-30 or Bill C-31. It also reminds me of a somewhat famous quote from H.L. Mencken, a great journalist who wrote that for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. We see that here so often in what we hear.

I will say what the complexities are and how they are not respected in this debate. This is not something that we can say is a simple problem. Even inflation in its traditional sense is not really simple, but this is not simple inflation. We have many factors. We thought initially that if we saw inflation in some prices of goods post-COVID that it would be in response to the pent-up spending desires of Canadians, who were not able to spend because COVID kept people from enjoying themselves, basically. The same thing happened after the Spanish influenza epidemic in the early part of the 20th century. The roaring twenties were a response to a very dismal period of people being locked down and to the massive number of deaths, in the millions, from the Spanish flu.

We were also told that we would see some initial inflation but it would be transitory and short-lived. That seemed to be holding true until February, when Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. That led to different costs and real costs rising because of the enormous impact it had immediately on the price of oil. Then there are climate impacts. Climate impacts are inflationary. It is important for my friends across the way to recognize that climate impacts have increased drought, have increased food prices and have increased the high price of some specific ingredients that make a difference in our shopping carts. All of these things combine to create what we are now experiencing in higher prices.

The response we get to this in terms of the interest rates is a debate in this place about how much money the Liberals spent in dealing with COVID and how they were just printing money. I would say this to my Conservative colleagues: I have no doubt that if Stephen Harper had been prime minister through a pandemic, he would have done exactly the same things the current Prime Minister did, because every economy in the G20 followed the same playbook. Every economy in the OECD was taking the same advice. Central bankers were using quantitative easing, a term I learned from the great former finance minister Jim Flaherty, who used quantitative easing. We were doing exactly what all the other economies around the world were doing, with virtually 0% interest rates and quantitative easing to get billions and trillions of dollars of money flowing into the global economy to confront the pandemic and try to save lives. These were complex issues, for sure, but they are simplified.

What I hear from the Conservative benches as we debate Bill C-30 is about inflation and the pain we are undergoing, to which Bill C-30 provides a band-aid. A band-aid is good when one is bleeding, by the way, but it is not a long-term solution. In this debate on Bill C-30, we have been hearing from the Conservatives that all the pain Canadians are experiencing is from the failures of the current government, that inflation is the fault of the current government and that global supply chain problems are the fault of the current government. I suppose the war in Ukraine, by extension, since that has been the proximate cause of the biggest price hikes in energy supply, is the fault of the government as well.

Disproportionately in this debate, the Conservative benches want to blame it for a very small increase, at 2¢ a tonne, in the price on carbon. That affects only some provinces. We have heard more than three times what the impact is. It is minuscule in the context of what we are experiencing and the real pain Canadians are feeling.

The simplification on the Liberal side is to ask us to compare Canada to other countries, as we are doing so much better than them. By the way, we have talked about our debt-to-GDP ratio, but just look at the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio. It is over 100%, so we are doing better than the United States by quite a lot. However, a single mother who is trying to buy groceries does not really care that overall Canada is doing better on our debt-to-GDP ratio. That is not top of mind. She really wants to know that somebody has her back, as the Liberals like to claim they do.

Both camps, to varying degrees, have oversimplified the problems we are facing. In doing so, I do not think we adequately respect the intelligence of thoughtful Canadians, who are more than prepared to understand that this is a global problem and that we are not the only country experiencing inflation. In fact, some of the countries that are experiencing inflation that is much worse than ours have no carbon price and have not gone through the same policy instruments. This is not a specific problem for which we can blame the Liberals. I will blame the Liberals for many things, but I cannot blame them for this inflation.

When we look at what this is about, I want to refer my colleagues to a book that I think is prescient and worth looking at. It came out in 2005. It is by James Howard Kunstler, who is a best-selling author. The book is called The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. In it, he pointed out that when the price of gas and oil becomes constrained by real events, we have a real challenge to what we presume to be our right to a certain standard of living, to a certain lifestyle, for lack of a better word.

We can look at the real costs of everything. I am going to quote Andrew Nikiforuk, writing in The Tyee and referring to The Long Emergency: “Since April 2020 the cost of oil has climbed five-fold. The price of coal, the cheapest of fossil fuels, has hit new highs by nearly 150 per cent.” These are real costs that really affect prices.

What do we need to do if we are serious? We do not need band-aid solutions. We need long-term solutions, anticipating that we may well be in a recession. Let us look at a wealth tax. We need to go back and look at a general wealth tax, but specifically let us look at a windfall tax on oil and gas profits. Oil and gas profits due to the war in Ukraine have had unbelievable gains.

I have come to the end of my time. We need to tax back.

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

Madam Speaker, the member brought up a really interesting point, which is that the Governor of the Bank of Canada made predictions regarding inflation and then something else was thrown in. It was a wrench. I do not think it is fair to assume that the governor should have known that a war in Ukraine was going to break out. However, the narrative that always comes from the Conservatives is that since the Governor of the Bank of Canada said one thing would happen but another thing happened, he is wrong and is therefore to blame.

Given that the governor could not have possibly known that a war in Ukraine would break out and what the sanctions would be, and hence the impact of it, would she agree that he is indeed not to blame for the fact that he may have gotten that wrong?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously no one can blame the Governor of the Bank of Canada for assuming that it was situation normal. It is not situation normal. I remember when the previous governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, was testifying at the finance committee. When asked if he was worried about the inflationary impact of the government using quantitative easing, he said that inflation was a problem he would love to have. He was worried about deflation.

The best and brightest folks, who are really bright, did not think that inflation was going to be a problem, and that if it was, it would be temporary and short-lived. We saw the price on some things go way up and the price of other things fall. It is not conventional inflation and it never was.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives will always support lower taxes. That is why we are supporting Bill C-30. My concern is that with one hand, the government is giving a few hundred dollars back to Canadians, but with the other hand, it is actually taking that money away by increasing payroll taxes and the carbon tax and by continuing to spend in a way that financial experts are saying is fuelling the inflationary pressures we are seeing.

Would the member agree that this temporary band-aid is really not going to fix the problem?

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

Madam Speaker, we may not agree on exactly what the problem is. I can agree that the temporary band-aid is not going to fix it.

Just on the point I had before closing, the profits that big oil is getting right now, which are off the charts and are really contributing to pain for Canadians, are essentially war profiteering. The profits are solely due to the war in Ukraine. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that if we increase the tax temporarily on the profits of big oil from 15% to 30%, $8 billion could be distributed to the Canadians who need it most. Let us get in a guaranteed livable income.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, for some time now we have been talking a lot about household purchasing power. We know that part of the decline in purchasing power is due to the drastic increase in the cost of resources, mainly fossil fuels. We know that, in the future, there will be policies to fight climate change that will end up increasing the cost of certain highly polluting goods.

I am wondering if this is now a good time, given the inflation crisis, to think about long-term solutions for Canadian and Quebec households. I am thinking in particular of households in western Canada, who are becoming less vulnerable to price increases by making the transition. I am wondering if the current crisis could inspire us to be more constructive in the long term.

In that light, I am wondering what solutions the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would suggest.

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

Madam Speaker, my sincere thanks to my colleague.

We have to think about preparing for future hurricanes, floods and heat waves.

In my province, British Columbia, more than 700 people died last summer because of climate change and heat waves. At this time, we are not ready to deal with disasters, which really damage our economy. We must eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel industries and plan to stop producing fossil fuels here, in Canada, with a plan to protect communities and workers. It is a long list.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

It is a privilege for me to rise today and speak to Bill C‑30 and to be able to enlighten Parliament and Canadians about the real concerns behind this seemingly noble and generous bill.

As everyone knows, setbacks in life cannot always be predicted, but they can be prevented through strong leadership, good judgment and common sense.

Unfortunately, we are feeling the harmful effects of Liberal governance, which was undermining our economies long before the pandemic. It is quite simple to understand. All the economic challenges we are facing at the moment are the result of an irresponsible and free-spending government that has been in place since 2015.

We are caught in a spiral where the cost of living is rising and where this Liberal government's spending to date has significantly increased the cost of living. We call this phenomenon “Justinflation”. We are doing the best we can to get through this unprecedented economic scandal. For our economy and our future, “Justinflation” is a real scandal.

Once again, the Liberal government is patting itself on the back of its tattered, old shirt for giving certain Canadians a refund cheque, when in reality that money was taken out of the pockets of Canadians who work hard and are overtaxed. They pay too much in taxes, reflective of a country that has turned communist.

If that is not a real scandal, I wonder what is. It is a grand deception. When the Liberals give money away, people should be wary.

I have heard a lot from my constituents about family allowance cheques and CERB cheques they received in the past, with the same type of masked noble intentions. I also heard about those who did not receive anything: our seniors.

The only support offered in Bill C‑30 is some much-needed relief for families. It amounts to $467. However, once again, some have been forgotten. People with no children who make over $49,200 and couples with two children, but who make over $58,500, will not receive a cent.

More than ever, we know that money does not grow on trees. The Liberals, with their inflationary policies, are the only ones who do not know that. The country's coffers are empty. We are living on borrowed money and we are tightening our belts as far as they can go. We certainly warned the Prime Minister during his years of reckless spending, and now we are seeing the results.

Canadians' wallets are empty too. They are living on their credit card and filling the pantry has become a challenge for many families who are struggling to make ends meet, even with an income that was considered adequate before the arrival of the Liberals in this government. The fact of the matter is that the average family of four now has to spend at least $1,200 more every year to put food on the table. That is to say nothing of the triple increase in the cost of heating, gas and food.

I will provide some examples and it will all become clear. The price of groceries has increased by 6.8%. It is said to be the most rapid increase in 40 years. The increase in the price of fish is 10.4%; the price of butter, 16.9%; the price of eggs, 10.9%; the price of margarine, 37.5%; the price of bread, 17.6%; the price of dry and fresh pasta, 32.4%; the price of fruit, 13.2%; the price of oranges, 18.5%; the price of apples, 11.8%; the price of coffee, 14.2%; the price of soup, 19.6%; the price of lettuce, 12.4%; the price of potatoes, 10.9%.

I want to talk about our businesses, our regional success stories that are a source of pride both at home and abroad. Contractors are experiencing the same Liberal-induced headaches. For many of them, the money is running out. Not only are businesses suffering from rising material costs and labour shortages, but they are also suffering more than ever from the Liberal government's inflationary measures. The harsh reality is that even small-business bankruptcies are on the rise. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one in six businesses are considering closing their doors and 62% of small businesses still have pandemic-related debt. I should mention in passing that I am not talking about the marijuana facilities run by the Liberals' friends. That is a whole other debate.

The Liberals have created a risky environment for small businesses. They cannot afford to do business anymore because of the tax hikes the Liberals are about to bring in, the rising cost of debt and skyrocketing inflation. If the Liberals are serious about the survival, recovery and growth of small business in Canada, they must immediately reverse all tax increases that affect small business.

Now I would like to talk about something that I find totally absurd, the carbon tax increase. If the Liberal government really wanted to make life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, it would cancel the carbon tax increase immediately. These tax hikes are happening at the worst possible time for Canadian families struggling with the rising cost of living due to inflation caused by our Prime Minister's choices. Instead of freezing taxes, the Prime Minister increased them for people who are having trouble making ends meet.

As we all know, life is harder and more complicated, and the machinery of government is moving slowly. People are struggling to stay afloat. Many have lost hope because of the Liberals. Problems keep piling up, everything from passports, temporary foreign workers, immigration and obtaining citizenship to the deficit and balancing the budget.

As for our justice system and the legacy the Liberals are leaving our youth by legalizing soft and hard drugs, what can I say? At this point, even organized crime is getting involved in legal marijuana production. According to an article in La Presse, there is an industrial model of medical marijuana production. A single location is using 36 personal certificates to grow 18,000 plants. If that is not organized, I do not know what is.

In closing, while we can no longer dream of a return to balanced budgets for our children and grandchildren, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel with the recent election of the new Conservative leader, Canada's next prime minister. We promise Canadians leadership and a strong opposition to the NDP-Liberal coalition. In the coming weeks, we will relentlessly continue calling on the Liberal government to cancel all planned tax increases, including the payroll tax increases planned for January 1 and the tax increases on gas, groceries and home heating planned for April 1. Unlike the NDP, which is silently and blindly supporting this government, we will also unconditionally support any good measures brought forward to help seniors, families and those who really need it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talks about supporting small businesses, and I can say that virtually from day one this government has supported small businesses. I could talk about the cut to the middle class tax bracket, which the Conservative Party voted against. That tax break put money in the pockets of consumers, who invested first-hand in small businesses. There were more direct small business tax breaks that were given to small business owners, and that is not to mention the billions and billions of dollars that was spent during the pandemic to support small business owners through loans, rent subsidies and wage subsidies. Now the Conservatives are saying we spend too much money in support of small businesses.

It is great that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-30. However, why do they try to give the false impression that they support small businesses when, in fact, the Conservatives opposed what we did to support small businesses?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, this Liberal government's inflationary policies have made Canadians so poor that the only outing they can afford each week is to go and pick up their mail at the mailbox. They go and pick up the bills that they cannot afford to pay because of the Liberal policies that have been in place since 2015. Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve change. That is what they are going to get in the future.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his colourful speech. I personally confess to being a great admirer of our colleague, and I do not think I am the only one in our party to feel that way.

There is a problem that is even bigger than consumer prices, and that is housing prices. There is truly a lack of available housing. Home ownership is really problematic. I would like to know the position of my colleague and his party on that subject, because that, also, is scandalous.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is really very important to be able to give Canadians back the hope of being able to stay in or own a home or a house. In a society such as ours, in Canada, a responsible government must give future generations and everyone a chance to exercise their right to fair and affordable housing. The opportunity to access housing is really very important.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I will give him the opportunity to clarify a little the remarks made by the Conservative Party in recent weeks. They seem to be confusing a tax with a contribution.

When people contribute to EI, they are putting money aside for the day when they will need it because they have lost their jobs. When people contribute to the Canada pension plan, they are putting money aside for their golden years so they can have it when they retire. These are not taxes, they are contributions. These are investments, an insurance in the event of unemployment and a means to live with dignity upon retirement.

Does my colleague not want seniors in his riding to put money aside and have a good retirement?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, before 2015, Canadians could think about saving because they paid less taxes and had the chance to have a future. At present, with all this inflationary government's taxes, Canadians are stretched to the limit and are tightening their belts to the last notch to survive. To give all Canadians hope, there must be real change, and that is what will happen in the future.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. We have proposed several measures over the last couple of weeks to help with the affordability crisis and inflationary crisis that exist for Canadians, like lowering taxes.

I wonder if the member has a comment on that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is really important that the government cancel all tax increases. It must stop increasing the carbon tax to help Canadians live because everything is more expensive. People need money to live. If people need money to live, they need to be left with more in their paycheques so they can pay their bills.

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 third time and passed.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, not 10 days ago I spoke at second reading to Bill C-30. In fact, it was the deputy government House leader who asked me at that time to compare Canada to the rest of the world in terms of economic performance. I told him that Canada's record should be able to stand on its own and that he and his government should not continue to push up inflationary spending.

I have good news, and that is that I am not alone in my thinking. As of yesterday, an article by Diane Francis was published, and it reads, “Canada need only look to Australia to see how badly Liberals have messed up”.

I am going to quote from this article. It says:

The current government is economically illiterate and the result is the country is slowly sinking in the rankings of most economic metrics among the world’s developed nations who are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development...An OECD report from October 2021 predicts, according to Business Council of British Columbia commentary, that Canada “will be the worst performing advanced economy over 2020 to 2030.” It also forecasts that Canada will have the worst economic growth among advanced economies over—

Wait for it.

—2030 to 2060. “In other words, Canada will be dead last not only for the next decade, but also for the three decades after that.”

Canada's former central bank chief, Stephen Poloz, at the recent Global Business Forum in Banff, said that Canada is a chronic underachiever, a condition caused by poor political decisions and the failure to address unresolved issues.

He also went on to say, “We get in our own way.”

We get in our own way. What is he really saying? I believe he is saying: “Government, get out of the way.”

He went on to list a few problems. He started by indicating “a political quagmire that requires a crisis to make decisions”. For example, I have this article here that states that the transport minister knew in May 2021 that the “federal airport security [workforce] was short-staffed by [up to] 25%, according to a briefing note”.

At the time, he blamed airport delays on Canadians who were eager to travel. The article continues:

In a May 13 briefing note titled “Airport and Flight Delays”, staff told [the minister] that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority...was [short] a quarter of its employees due to layoffs during COVID.

“The Authority retained 75 percent of its workforce during the pandemic to assist with recovery,” wrote staff. “Screening contractors called back all available personnel in preparation for the summer peak.”

Here was an example where we had a political quagmire that required a crisis to make a decision.

Mr. Poloz went on to cite “layers of regulation”. I have here an example in which the National Capital Commission decided not to grant a permit for a lemonade stand as a result of regulation:

In 2016, those regulations were the basis for which the Crown Corporation shut down a lemonade stand operated by seven- and five-year-old sisters—

It is unbelievable.

—on NCC property in Ottawa. Their transgression: the girls had failed to acquire a $1,500-per-day permit from the NCC. The incident garnered Canada-wide media coverage and the NCC quickly apologized and backtracked, allowing the children to resume selling lemonade the next weekend. To avoid similar incidents, the NCC developed a special permit for the following summer that would allow kids to sell lemonade or other goods on specific NCC property during nine Sundays. The new permit had 15 requirements, including but not limited to a requirement for bilingual signage, stand size restrictions, adherence to municipal and provincial health and safety regulations, an indemnification clause, and reporting of all revenues to the NCC.

This was for a lemonade stand.

These are layers of regulation from the government that are causing problems here.

Next in the list was “permit and consultation that take ages to complete”. Well, the Trans Mountain pipeline comes to mind, and Mr. Poloz also noted that “Canada is one of the most highly taxed economies on earth, which is discouraging”.

I have some information on that. G20 countries with a lower tax rate than Canada include Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, India and Indonesia. This is the company that the current government is keeping at this time.

As well, Mr. Poloz's final comment was on “interprovincial barriers that cost four per cent a year in GDP alone to Canada”. In fact, a study done by Deloitte indicates that, by removing current interprovincial taxes, which remain unfixed by the government, “average Canadian wages would climb by 5.5%”—if the government would address this—“resulting in a 5% increase in household income and more than $2,100 in real GDP per person. Corporate profits”—which I know the NDP does not like—“would increase by 2%.”

All of these actions result in Canada not living up to its economic potential, but the sad thing is that this does not simply rest with numbers and the economy alone. These numbers have real effects on people, as is evidenced by the article by Alicja Siekierska on an MNP survey, which says, “Canadians are finding it more difficult to pay for food, housing and transportation and nearly half are on the brink of insolvency as rising interest rates and soaring inflation continue to weigh on household budgets.”

I hear this from my constituents in Calgary Midnapore all the time. Gregory writes:

I would like to express further concern regarding our family's electricity and gas bill. It has skyrocketed—

Perhaps it has tripled.

—while our usage has remained the same...We have no option other than to pay, as we can't let our children freeze in the winter, but we cannot afford this dramatically rising cost. Please use your influence to fight for a regulation of this industry to bring the cost down.

Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. We are growing increasingly horrified by our federal government and appreciate your efforts to stand up for us.

From Alicja Siekierska's article, the MNP survey:

also found that 45 per cent of respondents say it’s becoming less affordable to pay for transportation, up nine percentage points from last year, and another 45 per cent say it is becoming more difficult to pay for clothing and other household necessities, an increase of five percentage points from last year. Paying for housing is also a challenge for many Canadians, with 37 per cent saying it is becoming less affordable....

At the same time, Canadians are finding it more difficult to save. The survey found that 49 per cent say it’s becoming less affordable to put money aside for savings, up five percentage points from last year.

Canadians, as the Conservative leader has pointed out, are putting more of their paycheques toward paying for basic necessities as the cost of living rises, which is, in turn, leaving less of a financial buffer to manage the impacts of current and potential future interest rate hikes. Again I hear from my constituents about this. Cindy wrote that she is worried about supply chains, “This is directly impacting our jobs and has been for 12+ months now.” The government has had lots of time to respond to this as well. She continues, “The impact of supply chain issues is going to become such a global tragedy very soon.”

As for the rising cost of living, she lists exactly the things we have been talking about in the House, “Heating, gas, food, housing — all four areas are of concern for our home. The increase in overall federal tax is criminal. They have misspent billions of taxpayer dollars and it is a feeling of helplessness to the average Canadian.” Regarding a “tax on sale of home”, she says, “Again, this is criminal for the federal government to even consider this as an option”—which it has flirted with doing—“due to their lack of fiscal management. Someone has to stop these decisions.”

I can say that my Conservative colleagues and I are here to stop these decisions. Along with Diane Francis, Alicja Siekierska, and my constituents Gregory and Cindy, we say to the Liberal government, “Government, get out of the way.”

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

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I found it very shocking to hear that somebody would be told that they have to shut down a lemonade stand. I googled it and in fact the member is right. Back in 2016, there were two 11-year-old sisters who set up a lemonade stand and made $52 in less than two hours before a cyclist stopped to tell them they were not allowed to be doing that. Then, of course, as she said shortly thereafter, somebody from the NCR showed up and told them they had to stop. It is ludicrous that would happen. When young kids are trying to pursue an entrepreneurial spirit like that, I would agree completely.

However, is the member aware that this happened in 2016? The government was elected in the fall of 2015. Does the member think that this government, on day one, instituted rules with the National Capital Commission that prevented the ability to sell lemonade, or perhaps would there have been an opportunity in the preceding 10 years with the previous government to do something about it?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to correct the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is the NCC, not the NCR, and they were seven and five years old, not two 11-year-olds.

On that point, I will say that this is the mentality of the Liberal government: It wants to keep the Canadian people down. It wants to control the Canadian people by taxing them to death and by taking $1,000 and giving them two dollars back. We are not going to tolerate it. Neither I nor my Conservative colleagues are going to tolerate that, and certainly not under our new leader, the member for Carleton.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my energetic colleague what she thinks about this. The Bloc Québécois proposes to do two things to control the cost of living. First, to help seniors in particular, we want to see no reductions in the guaranteed income supplement for those who received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit during the pandemic.

Next, the Bloc Québécois would like to increase old age security to preserve seniors' purchasing power.

What does my colleague think about these two proposals?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the Bloc Québécois and we Conservatives care about seniors. It is very clear that the government does not care about seniors.

I think the member has some good ideas, and I am sure we can talk more about how we can work together for seniors, because it is abundantly clear that the government has not done anything for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear the member opposite's speech. She talked about comparing Canada to other countries. She read off a number of news articles, and it sparked me to think about articles I have seen recently. One was about how Liz Truss came into power with the Conservative Party in the U.K. with promises of tax cuts, and then miraculously there was this huge U-turn because it crashed the economy into a horrible descent. The next article was about how they were desperately trying to figure out how to save the U.K. economy, and the next one was about how the Labour Party was about 12 points up in the polls because of this disaster with the Conservative Party of the U.K.

In comparison, Conservatives in this country are doing the exact same thing, so I would love to hear her comparison of their plan with that of the U.K. Conservatives.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not concerned because, frankly, we are leading the polls. We are rocking the polls, so I think we are doing the right things that Canadians want to see. We are going to continue doing them alongside our new leader, the member for Carleton.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

It is a true pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. For those who need a reminder, Bill C-30 is the legislation that, if passed, would double the goods and services tax credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year and would deliver targeted relief directly to Canadians who need it. It would make life affordable for many Canadians who need this additional support.

We are here for the third reading of this bill in the House of Commons after having considered this legislation at the finance committee yesterday. I am pleased to say that Bill C-30 was passed in record time at the finance committee by all parties. It was good see that there was unanimous approval and support for this bill, and I hope that the opposition parties will consider also supporting our other affordability measures, such as providing a targeted dental benefit and a one-time housing benefit top-up.

As members may know, our federal government has made it very clear that our first order of business for this parliamentary session is to make life more affordable for the Canadians who need it the most. We know that Canadians are feeling the rising cost of living through things like higher food prices and rent, so while inflation is a global challenge caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Bill C-30 would help families weather its impacts by putting more money back in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join it.

By doubling the GST credit for six months, this key piece of legislation would deliver $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to 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. With Bill C-30, single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234, and couples with two children would receive an extra $467 this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average.

Let us take a minute to delve more deeply into some examples of what it would mean for Canadians in real terms for the 2022-23 benefit year. I like giving clear examples because it allows people, not only those in my riding of Davenport, but also Canadians right across the country, to see themselves in some of these profiles.

Under the current GST credit, a single mother with one child and a net income of $30,000 would receive $386.50 for the July through December 2022 period and another $386.50 for the January through June 2023 period. However, with Bill C-30, she would receive an additional $386.50. Therefore, in total, she would be receiving about $1,160 this benefit year through the GST credit, and that would be super helpful for a single mother.

Another example is that under the status quo GST credit, a single senior with $20,000 in net income would be receiving $233.50 for the July through December 2022 period and another $233.50 for the January through June 2023 period. However, with Bill C-30, if it is passed, this senior would receive an additional $233.50. In total, he or she would be receiving about $701 this benefit year through the GST credit.

I will give one more example. Under the present system, a couple with two children and $35,000 in net income would be receiving $467 for the July through December 2022 period and another $467 for the January through June 2023 period. With the temporary doubling of the GST credit amount for six months, this family would receive an additional $467, so in total they would be receiving about $1,401 this benefit year through the GST credit.

What is more, with this change the money would be coming to them through a straightforward process. That is because the extra GST credit amounts would be paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time lump sum payment before the end of the year. Recipients would not need to apply for the additional payment. They only need to have filed their 2021 tax returns, if they have not already done so, to be able to receive both the current GST credit and the additional payment.

Moreover, Bill C-30 is just one out of two pieces of legislation that we have introduced already in this parliamentary session to make life more affordable for Canadians. The Minister of Health has also introduced Bill C-31, which would provide a Canada dental benefit starting this year. I was very privileged to speak on this bill in the House of Commons last week, because a national dental care benefit is so important to Davenport residents. I want to formally indicate the importance of this legislation passing in the House.

Just to remind everyone, Bill C-31, if passed, would allow families with children under 12 who do not have access to private dental insurance and who have an adjusted net income of less than $90,000 to access direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, up to $650 per year, to cover dental expenses for the children under 12 years old.

Bill C-31 would also provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This would be available to applicants with an adjusted net income below $35,000 for families or below $20,000 for individuals who pay at least 30% of their income on rent. This means a one-time payment of $500 to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

The bills that we are discussing today, both Bill C-30, very specifically, and, as an aside, Bill C-31, will not solve everything. While they will not solve everything, as our Minister of Finance said yesterday at finance committee, they would provide real support for 11 million Canadian households, for people who really need the help.

It is important to remind the House that there are many other measures that would build on Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, which we have been speaking about today. These include measures like enhancing the Canada workers benefit. This would deliver $1.7 billion in new support to an estimated three million low-income workers this year, with a couple receiving up to $2,400 more and single workers receiving up to $1,200 more. Most recipients have already received this additional support through their 2021 tax refund.

Second, as a result of agreements reached with all 13 provinces and territories, we are also effectively cutting regulated child care fees in half, on average, for families in Canada by the end of this year. This Canada-wide plan means savings for families from $2,610 in Manitoba to $6,000 in British Columbia in 2022, and an average child care fee of just $10 a day for all regulated child care spaces across Canada by 2025-26.

We have also introduced a 10% increase to the old age security pension for seniors 75 years and older, which began in July 2022 and which would provide more than $800 in new support to full pensioners over the first year and increase benefits for more than three million seniors.

We are also providing support for students by doubling the Canada student grant amount until July 2023 and by waiving interest on Canada student loans through to March 2023.

Taken together, our federal government's affordability plan is delivering targeted and fiscally responsible financial support to Canadians who need it the most with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation.

We will continue to strike a balance between delivering support, where and when it is needed the most, and maintaining the discipline that has given Canada the strongest fiscal position in the G7.

In conclusion, I know that Canadians are counting on parliamentarians to make the support of Bill C-30 a reality, and I would encourage my colleagues on all sides to support the immediate adoption of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, no. 1, so that we could continue to make life more affordable for Canadians who need it the most.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives support the tax relief found in Bill C-30 and have been doing our part to be helpful to those Canadians. Our leader has gone throughout this great country and has heard the personal stories from so many people who are suffering right now under incredible taxation and inflation under the current government. I would hope the member would recognize that the same family of four might get $467 from this bill, but they are facing $1,200 in extra food costs alone.

The member's government plans on tripling the carbon tax next year. Does she support the tripling of the carbon tax, which will increase the cost of groceries, gas and home heating, yes or no?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to repeat something that a colleague of mine, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour, said in the House of Commons with respect to taxes. When our government lowered the taxes for the middle class twice, the Conservatives voted against it. When we tried to lower the taxes for small businesses, they also voted against it.

He also indicated, and I believe this to be true, that the Conservatives are not friends of the Canadian taxpayer because, when they were in government, they raised taxes on Canadians more than 50 times.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Davenport for her speech on this bill, which seeks to help people.

The government likes to boast about things like helping seniors. I will come back to this, because I was talking about it just this morning with a food bank representative who reminded me how difficult the situation is for seniors. Do we really want to force seniors to line up at food banks?

This bill is only partially helpful at this point. The government boasts about providing help, but it is only helping seniors aged 75 and over. This means that half of seniors are being left behind by this government. Those aged 65 to 74 are being forced to line up at food banks. Is that fair?

This is just the tip of the iceberg, since we know that many seniors are too proud to ask for help. They are at home and suffering. What does the government have to offer people aged 65 to 74?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and I truly believe that her concern is genuine.

We very much care about seniors. I believe the doubling of the GST credit will continue to support many seniors. I think if we manage to pass Bill C-31 it will also support seniors through the Canada housing benefit one-time top-up. I think that will be very beneficial for them.

The seniors in my riding of Davenport have already told me that they are excited about a national dental care plan. They know it will not go into effect for them until the end of next year, but they are already excited and very much looking forward to its implementation.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

There is good news in this bill: the GST credit, the housing benefit and dental care for children this year and for seniors next year. The good thing is that this all came about because the government listened to the NDP's good ideas.

The work of the NDP caucus is what got us to this point. Why stop now when we could go even further and tax the excessive profits that big grocery chains, big oil companies and banks are raking in and use that money to make social programs even better? We could improve health care by creating real universal pharmacare.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I think we work best in this House when we take the best ideas and work together to implement them.

We are absolutely raising corporate income tax by 1.5% on Canada's largest, most profitable banks and insurance companies. We have also introduced a recovery dividend of 15% on the excess profits of those institutions during the COVID pandemic. There are a number of other measures that we are putting in place as well.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I rise in the House as a New Democrat in support of Bill C-30, I should state from the outset that, even with the emergency cost of living economic supports for Canadians made vulnerable in this economy, what people need most is stable social and economic supports that meaningfully improve their material living conditions, funded by a fair taxation that does not place the burden on a consumer tax that disproportionately impacts low-income and working-class people most. What Canada needs is a fair taxation system that would close corporate loopholes in order to recover the reported $30 billion lost due to corporate tax avoidance.

I should begin, in fairness, by highlighting, for those who are watching this debate tonight, that this bill would double the GST credit and provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already received the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of seniors.

I believe this debate on Bill C-30 has made clear that most members, despite their partisan rhetoric, agree this bill offers a temporary reprieve from this greed-filled inflation and its inevitable recession, which will likely be associated with further unemployment. That is what keeps me up at night. It is the insecurity of the precarious workers that is built into this cyclical system and reproduced through these cycles to suppress wages and to force people back into exploitative low-paying jobs.

These attacks on workers are simply explained as profit-maximizing measures by shrewd corporate managers. This is why I believe that while contemplating this bill I should spend some time expanding on the preconditions of the economic system that drove us here.

People in Hamilton Centre are suffering. The vast majority of everyday people are unable to keep up with their monthly bills. Soaring inflation has pushed housing, food and energy costs way out of reach for people, and the feeling of insecurity is setting in across the country. Precarious employment is further punishing workers by threatening their ability to survive through this devastating economy, and wages simply are not keeping pace by being kept at and pushed down to devastatingly low rates. In short, workers' wages are being stolen by the record profits of big corporations and the payouts to their CEOs and shareholders.

Every aspect of our lives has been commodified by big banks and Bay Street. Our very existence is valued down to the decimal to be bought and sold by hedge funds and real estate income trusts so that those who have never lifted a finger in hard work in the creation of the means of production are grossly rewarded by the spoils of these dividends and payouts.

There is a class war happening in this country. There has always been a class war happening in this country, and it is being waged by the ultrarich in this country versus everybody else. Over the past 40 years the Canadian economy, both under Liberal and Conservative governments, has generated obscene amounts of concentrated wealth for the rich, while everybody else has been left behind. How can anyone in the House justify the enormous concentration of wealth by so few, while so many continue to suffer?

These everyday Canadian workers are facing down the barrel of another devastating recession, one that we know will be felt most by the rise of unemployment and the overnight hikes of interest rates, making people's payments on mortgages and personal lines of credit explode overnight. The adage of “the rich get richer, while the workers continue to get exploited” is happening now more than ever.

The people of Hamilton Centre are struggling, left to survive the misery of the daily grind of low wages and legislated poverty, should they be living with disabilities, while also facing greed-driven rocket-high costs of living.

The Liberals, with their constant talk about the middle class and those working hard to join it, which is so insulting, would have Canadian workers believe that it is their own fault if they are not getting well-paying jobs or, more accurately, if they are not born into wealth to begin with and that they should blame themselves.

The leader of the official opposition will continue to put big corporations and billionaires first. The Conservatives will blame government for any meagre supports delivered to people living with disabilities, low-wage workers, migrant workers and anybody else left out of this economy. They speak of inflation and the money that was directed to working-class people, yet they never have a critique on the $750-billion bailout of big banks and Bay Street. The Conservatives attack Canada's social safety net of the copay contributions of employment insurance and the Canada pension plan, and not because they care about the contribution of the workers, but because they are fighting to save the contribution copayments by big business corporate employers.

This is at a time when Canadians need this economic support and stability the most. We should be delivering more support to Canadians and not less, particularly those who are left unemployed and our seniors, who are struggling to get by on their meagre CPP. They should be getting more and not less. We should not be attacking their pensions in this House. We should be ensuring that CPP and EI dollars are protected in separate accounts so that successive Liberal and Conservative governments will not have the tendency to raid these funds to balance their books.

While the Conservatives have callously attacked this bill throughout the debate on one hand, we already know that they are going to be supporting it. They are forced to ultimately support it because it is literally the least the government can do in the face of the astronomical costs of living. In their so-called free market fantasy, they never admit that corporations make off like bandits, pilfering government support by exploiting loopholes that have allowed them to take taxpayer dollars while paying out record dividends to their shareholders.

I am often in this House, and when I hear Conservative Party members clapping about the record profits of oil and gas, I ask myself how many MPs are receiving dividends on the profits of the same corporations that took wage subsidies and supports. These companies were not reinvesting in the economy. They were not improving the material working conditions of their employees by raising their wages to keep pace with the basic levels of economic survival. They were lining their own pockets and those of their shareholders.

This capitalist system creates enormous wealth, but it also creates great misery for the majority of people. This entire system is predicated on corporations spending as little as they can while getting the most out of every dollar they spend. It is not that they do not want to pay low wages; they are also pressuring people to get the most output from their workers at this low wage. When we hear about job creation, long gone is the day when a family can have one or two income earners who work nine to five and have enough to pay their bills. Families and workers across the country are forced to participate in two, three or four low-wage exploitative jobs. The rewards in this economy when this wealth is generated always go to the employers while workers continue to be punished.

In this regard and in many other ways, it is the capitalism of the system that generates the inequality. If we can, in a very small tokenistic way, return some money back to the pockets of Canadians, we support that. However, we call on the government to do more by workers, do more by seniors and do more by people who are living with a disability and precarious people who have been exploited by this economy.

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

Madam Speaker, the government, over the last number of years, has been working in different communities and has done a great deal to support people from all different spectrums. We can talk about the hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty and the hundreds of thousands of seniors lifted out of poverty by this government. We can talk about one-time payments during the pandemic for people with disabilities and, again, for our seniors.

I do not know if the member is being accurate in his portrayal that this government is not sensitive to the individuals who are in need. In our policy, whether that is legislation from the Minister of Disability Inclusion or other financial matters such as budgets, we have been there. I wonder if the member might want to reflect on some of the commitments that have actually materialized.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will reflect on it. While I am doing that, I ask the hon. member to reflect on the fact that we have a system right now where we have people living in deep, legislated poverty, people living with disabilities and seniors living in absolute squalor conditions in long-term care facilities who are actually contemplating medical assistance in dying because the government refused to provide, without delay, supports to people with disabilities. It refused our motion to provide a guaranteed basic livable income to people living with disabilities and to seniors. That is what it should be reflecting on, and it is to this country's shame.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record a bit. The Conservative Party has been opposed to the corporate welfare that the Liberal government has been handing out for a very long time.

Why does the member's party continue to support the government when the member is obviously very opposed to what the government is up to?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I took on this job, I did it with the commitment to improve the material conditions of low-income and working-class people and of everyday Canadians in my constituency. When the Conservative Party talks about inflation and talks about the dumpster fire that is this economy, it never talks about the arsonist. It never talks about going after big banks and Bay Street. We are the only party in this House, quite frankly, that has the stomach to take on big business interests. The truth is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are at the table dining with them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we know for sure about my colleague from Hamilton Centre is that he is passionate about advocating for social rights and representing his constituents.

I think my colleague would be sympathetic to the Bloc Québécois proposal to build more social and community housing. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to transfer 1% of its revenue to Quebec and the provinces to build new social and community housing units. This funding should be stable and permanent.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Hamilton Centre thinks about that. Does he support this idea, and does he think it is enough?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy opportunities where I can find common ground with members of other parties. In particular, the Bloc brings some progressive policies to this House, including the statement we just heard about the need to decommodify the real estate market. We need to wrest control of the housing market from big banks, Bay Street and real estate income trusts, and do what the government did with the creation of CMHC, which is to be bold with a federal intervention and the creation of millions of decommodified houses.

On this talk about affordability and the Liberal government, I would say affordable for whom. It talks about affordability that is at 125% of market value, but what we know to be true is that affordability must be tied to people's ability to pay, not left up to the so-called free market of both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

I rise today in support of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, no. 1, which would double the goods and services tax, or GST, credit for six months. It is one of the new measures we are proposing to provide targeted support to Canadians who need it the most so we can help them adapt to the rising cost of living without, however, exacerbating inflation.

Our government is fully aware that Canadians are feeling the effects of inflation, especially when they fill up at the pumps or buy groceries, for example. Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon largely driven by the effects of the pandemic, amplified by the zero-COVID policy in China and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Although inflation is not as high here as in several other countries and it has come down from its peak in June, we know that Canadians are worried. No single country alone can solve the problem of high global inflation. However, what we can do is help Canadians by taking tangible action to make life more affordable here at home. This brings me to Bill C‑30, which seeks to double the GST credit for six months.

Our proposal to double the GST credit for a six-month period would provide an additional $2.5 billion in targeted support for about nine million people living alone and nearly two million couples. In total, 11 million individuals and families who are already entitled to the tax credit would receive it, including roughly half of Canadian families with children and more than half of all seniors in Canada.

The GST credit is a tax-free benefit paid out every three months. It helps low- and modest-income individuals and families recoup the GST they pay. Canadians are automatically considered for this credit when they file their income tax returns and are eligible for it if their income is below a certain threshold. The measure we are proposing would benefit those who already qualify for the credit, and the help would be tangible.

In practical terms, single Canadians without children and single seniors, for example, would receive up to $234 more than they do now. Couples with two children, for example, would receive up to $467 more. A single parent with one child would receive up to $397 more than expected.

These additional amounts would be paid before the end of the year as one-time lump sum payments to current recipients through the system already in place. Recipients would not have to apply for the additional payments. All they have to do is file their 2021 tax return.

Bill C‑30 is part of the new suite of measures we are proposing to help Canadians. Another part is found in Bill C‑31, which I hope we will soon have the opportunity to debate.

This other bill proposes, for example, to create a Canadian dental benefit. This temporary measure would be offered as early as this year to children under 12 who are not covered by private dental insurance. Families could receive direct payments of up to $1,300 per child over the next two years, or $650 a year, to cover the cost of dental care. This benefit is the first step in the government's plan to offer dental care to families with an adjusted net income of less than $90,000 a year.

Bill C‑31 also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit. This would allow 1.8 million renters who are struggling to pay their rent to receive $500. It is another measure that I hope we will soon have the opportunity to approve.

Our government supports Canadians who are most vulnerable to an increase in the cost of living in a way that does not needlessly fan the flames of inflation. That is the danger in an inflationary crisis.

The incremental cost of new measures included in Bills C‑30 and C‑31 is $3.1 billion. That is only 0.1% of our gross domestic product. Therefore, we are proposing to strike a balance between fiscal and financial responsibility and compassion for those who truly need help.

In conclusion, what Bill C‑30 proposes is in addition to measures we have already announced as part of our plan to make life more affordable for Canadians.

First, the enhanced Canada worker benefit will provide three million Canadians with more support. For example, a couple could receive up to $2,400 more this year, while a single person could receive up to $1,200 more.

Second, agreements have been signed with the ten provinces and three territories. This will cut in half the cost of day care for Canadian families by the end of the year. This pan-Canadian initiative will result, for example, in savings ranging from $2,610 in Manitoba to $6,000 in British Columbia. For 2022, in the province of Quebec, which already has its own day care system, the government's plan will help create approximately 37,000 new day care spaces.

Third, we increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over by 10%. This measure benefits more than three million Canadians and provides additional benefits of $766 for full pensioners in the first year.

Fourth, all major government benefits are indexed to inflation, including old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension plan, the Canada child benefit and the GST/HST credit. This means they are adjusted for increases in the cost of living.

Fifth and sixth, providing dental care to Canadians and making a one-time payment to renters who are struggling to pay for housing are two of the measures included in Bill C‑31, which we will be debating soon; I hope all members of the House will support it.

This is all in addition to other investments our government has made since 2015. I strongly believe in making life more affordable for Canadians, and especially in helping those who are most in need. That is exactly what Bill C‑30 does, and I urge all members to vote in favour.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the government is moving forward with certain measures, including the GST credit. We know that when the Liberals send out a cheque, it is usually because an election is on the horizon. I hope that is not the case here.

My colleague talked about increasing old age security by 10% for people aged 75 and over. The Bloc Québécois has long been a voice for Quebec seniors, who are saying that they do not want two classes of seniors and that they want this benefit to be similarly increased for people aged 65 to 74.

I have the following question for my colleague. When it comes to the rising cost of living, what is the difference between someone who is 74 and someone who is 75? Why would the Liberals deprive a 74-year-old of the old age security increase?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. The difference is that there have always been age limits in Canada in every segment of society. For example, one must be 16 to get a driver's licence.

This measure is for people 75 and up. The increase was set out clearly in our election platform.

What we would like to help people understand is that, statistically, the cost of care is much higher for people over 75 than for those under 75. Many more people live alone at 75, twice as many. At 80, there are three times more widows and widowers. That is the rationale behind the age limit.

However, the measures we are now considering in Bill C‑30 and Bill C‑31 target the hardest-hit Canadians and will help them deal with inflation rates.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will always support lower taxes and putting more money back into the pockets of Canadians, but I wonder why the government brought forward the idea in Bill C-30 that with one hand it is going to give some money back to Canadians, but with other hand it is going increase payroll taxes and the carbon tax and take that money back. Would the member please explain why the government is doing that?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her interesting question. I think countries are asking themselves very important questions about the climate crisis.

The official opposition keeps harping on about the carbon tax. Our goal here, in the midst of the global inflationary crisis, is to focus on helping those hardest hit.

With respect to the carbon tax, the provinces have the power to give it back to people, and we hope they will work together to do that. Nevertheless, Bill C‑30 and Bill C‑31 are a balanced approach to helping people in a way that does not exacerbate inflation. I hope all members will support this bill.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I just want to point out that dental care for children, the higher GST tax credit and the housing benefit top-up all came about because the NDP forced the Liberals to introduce them. This is a minority government, and we used our position of strength to get results for people.

The rising cost of living is hurting people, so why stop there? Oil companies and big grocery chains are making record profits, so why not tax those excessive profits, take that money back and create a real universal pharmacare program, for example?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

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

All good ideas and good debates that aim to help our society are welcome in the House. I must give credit to all the members who support this bill, whether it is that or dental care, as he explained.

The problem we have on a global scale right now is an inflationary crisis, and the basic rules of macroeconomics dictate that we target as much as possible the people we want to help, so as not to exacerbate the crisis. That is what the bill does. We need to focus on that, specifically, helping Canadians and targeting those who need it the most and who are struggling the most. Those are the people Bill C-30 will help.

I am counting on all members to support this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 5:43 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 October 4 consideration of the motion that C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 50 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise and speak on third reading of Bill C-30. Bill C-30 addresses the cost of living for many Canadians by looking at targeted relief programs. In this bill and the previous bill, that includes tax relief by increasing the GST credit and the HST rebate for low-income earners or those whose incomes are under the $39,000 threshold per year, and also the implementation of dental care benefits.

We know on this side of the House that Canadians are having a difficult time right now. Many of them are certainly feeling the rising cost of living, no matter where they live in this country. Those living in the north are probably seeing those costs escalate at a higher rate and by a larger margin, as many others in northern Canada can attest, but it is happening throughout the country, whether it is higher food prices or higher prices on other commodities, especially building materials, for example. I have heard so many people talk about not being able to do maintenance and repairs on their homes because of the doubling and tripling costs of building materials.

I have heard many stories from families living on low incomes, who are having difficulty meeting the food security needs within their families. The one we hear quite often is the rising cost of fuel services, vehicles and the purchasing of all commodities in people's lives. For those who travel because they have kids who participate in many events across the country, in sports, in theatre and in student exchanges, participation in all of these things is costing more every single day.

We know that affordability is getting more difficult for many families, but we also know there is a limit as a government in terms of what we can do. We have introduced targeted measures that we hope will make it a little easier for so many families in this country. Those targeted measures will be an investment of over $12 billion in new supports for families.

One of them that I want to talk about today is the doubling of the GST credit for six months, as is proposed in this bill. By doing that, we are allowing many families with lower incomes to have extra money that will enable them to meet some of the demands and needs for household costs they are currently having to deal with. I know, for example, there are many families across my riding, especially many seniors, who are on the low-income spectrum and having to run their homes and families. I know this will make a huge difference for them. Having that extra money coming in over that six-month period will certainly help them get to where they need to be.

The investment in the HST rebate program, which will give extra money to low-income families, will mean an extra $2.5 billion of investments by the Government of Canada that will go to low-income families and seniors who need them. This will help them through this critical period of time, and it is a necessary investment by the government right now. I know we often take tremendous criticism on this side of the House for investing in programs that are supporting food security, heat security, children and families, but we do not make any apologies for this, because we know that in the time we are in, this financial assistance is totally necessary.

I hear from so many seniors in my riding who live on low incomes and are experiencing challenges with the higher food prices and with the ordinary cost of running their homes. I know this plan of doubling the GST credit for the next six months is going to make a huge difference to them.

The other thing we are doing with the cost of living relief act is that we would bring in the Canada dental benefit. This is a benefit that would allow many families who have no health insurance coverage for dental care to get the dental services they need for their children under the age of 12.

This is a program we would phase in over the next couple of years, but the first phase of the program, which would be implemented immediately, would provide the benefit to Canadians who do not have dental insurance policies, have an income of less than $90,000 annually and have children under the age of 12 years old. Those children would be able to access dental services as a result of this legislation. At this point, it would specifically be for children under the age of 12 in families who do not have dental care and an income of $90,000 a year or less.

Under the Canada dental benefit, direct payments would be made over a two-year period, which would allow people to claim back up to $1,300 per child for dental care services. This would start this year.

The next phase of the program would ensure seniors have dental coverage and that other Canadians have the coverage they need for dental care, depending on their income levels. It is expected that under this particular program over 500,000 Canadian children would benefit. Nearly $1 billion has been targeted to provide this particular service.

I know a lot of people are wondering how the benefit would work, how it would be paid out and how long it would take for the first stage of the government's plan to deliver coverage for families and get to the next level of care, which would be for seniors. I want to confirm the provinces and territories and private industry have all been engaged with regard to timelines, the longevity of the program and how it would roll out. The government remains committed to implementing this dental care program.

This is going to have a huge impact on many families and children. I remember growing up in the north in a community with no dental services, and we had to fly out for those services. If a child would go to a hospital with a toothache, the first thing they would do is pluck the tooth and not provide any other dental care.

We have moved way beyond that in Canada. Looking after the dental needs of kids helps prevent other diseases and illnesses. I know I am going to run out of time but I would like to tell a very short story. A lady was having many problems with her back, and doctors could not figure out what it was. They eventually determined she had a disease of her teeth and gums that was affecting all her body and causing infections that were causing so many other illnesses. It just goes to show that, if a person looks after their teeth and their dental hygiene, it can provide much better health outcomes for children and for all people in the population.

I am really happy to support the bill, to support the increase in HST for families who are earning $39,000 and under, and to support dental care for kids under 12 in Canada. These are good moves that help with affordability for many families. I hope my colleagues will support the bill.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have looked at parts of this, I am curious to know how this bill would actually have a positive impact on the underprivileged, those who have a limited income, when the department and the act say that tax filings are going to be used from the CRA to make the determination of who gets this funding. Reports I have been seeing indicate the concern around this bill is that those individuals who really need it will not get it because they are not going to be filing CRA income tax returns.

I want to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks of that particular concern that Canadians have raised.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in order to provide the HST or GST supplement to Canadians, they have to be qualified for it. That means they have to be under certain income thresholds in order to be eligible. Obviously, the real place to go is to check with the CRA as to what their last income tax earnings were. It will be based on that.

What I can say is that, from our projections, this will be able to support about 11 million Canadians with regard to additional income under the GST program.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

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

This is a fairly simple bill that gets right to the point. I think it is a good measure that will in fact give low-income Canadians a break in this time of inflation.

My colleague spoke of seniors in her speech. We know that retired seniors are on a fixed income and that those who have a very low income receive the guaranteed income supplement. Those who applied for the CERB or the CRB last year will receive reduced GIS payments this year.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks it would be a good idea not to reduce this benefit payment so seniors can get a break.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to seniors that is a really good question. I think we have all had to deal with this over the last few months.

First of all, for any seniors who are under the threshold, in terms of what their supplementary allowances provide them in Canada based on their incomes, it did not change. While there was extra money paid out and extra benefits paid out, most of the people who were impacted were people who had other smaller pensions coming in from the side, so their cumulative income reached a different threshold level with that bump in payment.

What I can say is that very few seniors in this country who are dependent upon supplementary benefits have any room at all to make adjustments in their budgets. Their incomes are very fixed and they have very little room in terms of other escalating costs that may be happening in their lives. I think increasing the GST for many of these people will be a tremendous help for them, going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly send strength to Newfoundlanders as they rebuild from hurricane Fiona. We, as New Democrats, will be there to support my colleague's efforts as well.

It is great in this House to see the Liberals come on board and support the doubling of the GST tax credit. Even the Conservatives and the Bloc, all parties, are getting on board so this is an exciting moment. My colleague talked about dental care, which she voted against a year ago. It is great to hear the Liberals get on board with dental care. We need a health care system that is head to toe.

Mental health is health. Just yesterday it was announced that 35% of the respondents to the Mental Health Commission survey, people across Canada, said they had mental health challenges. One out of three did not even access care because they could not afford it or could not get access to it.

Will our colleague tell us when they will roll out the $4.5-billion mental health transfer that Liberals promised Canadians to help them get the help that they need.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague but I want to correct him on something. If he is referring to the dental bill that came forward in the House by the former member for St. John's East, I did support that motion. I wanted to correct that for the record.

I also want to say that I support the bill that is here today. I supported the motion at the time because I know the need for dental care in the riding that I represent and in many other northern and rural ridings across Canada. I know how important it is for families to have that kind of treatment for their children, and I am happy to support the bill that is before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed and talented colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

We have been living through unprecedented times for a little over two years now. Certainly, this is not the first pandemic. The last one was a hundred years ago. Of course, this is not the first war humans have experienced. Moreover, this is not the first inflationary crisis we have lived through. However, it is the first time that those three elements have overlapped, and during the communication age no less.

The pandemic seems to have been the catalyst that exposed global weaknesses in the supply chain, dependence on foreign production and flaws in long-term political vision. This was compounded by the war in Ukraine, yet that is not the only war being fought. There are other wars in other countries, in different forms, with serious repercussions for the people. However, the war in Ukraine is putting additional pressure on supply chains, especially agricultural and food supply chains. That pressure is aggravating situations that were already tragic in a number of countries, such as those in Africa.

In Canada, that pressure is felt in the form of higher prices, such as input prices for farmers and consumer prices for ordinary Canadians. I could cite a long list of elements that led to the current inflationary crisis, given that inflation is a fairly complex phenomenon that is never caused by only one or two factors.

Just the same, before I begin, I would like to highlight one other factor that increases the pressure on Canadian households. The rise in the cost of housing, whether one is purchasing or renting, is not inconsequential. It is the result of an increase in population, both in Quebec and in Canada, and of a decrease in the amount of social and affordable housing being built. I am talking about housing such as co-operatives, low-income housing and other models that can be found in Quebec, in particular.

Social housing allows low-income people to spend less than 30% of their income on housing, while still living in an environment where they can receive services and support, and where they can participate in a rewarding community life.

To recap, I would say that the current inflationary situation has a direct link to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As such, it is important to implement solutions with a positive long-term vision. We need solutions that are sustainable and predictable, but also flexible.

We must not forget that the current situation is having repercussions now and that it will continue for a long time if nothing is done. It will have repercussions on the health care system, on the workplace and in community settings.

While we all aspire to reach the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in other words, meeting our need for accomplishment through self-actualization, by achieving our full potential and our creativity, the current situation directly attacks the first two steps of the pyramid that are physiological needs, or basic needs, and the need for security.

A society has everything to gain by ensuring that the majority of its population reaches the last steps of Maslow's pyramid, the need for esteem and the need for accomplishment. I say the majority because in a person's life there is always a moment or a situation that brings them back to the physiological needs, the need for affection and the need for security.

However, in a strong society, that person can overcome adversity to reach the upper levels, esteem and self-actualization, again. Society has everything to gain, because people who meet their need for esteem and self-actualization tend to be engaged in all the spheres of their lives, professional, social and family. They are happier and healthier, and they take better care of themselves and their loved ones. That directly relieves some of the strain on the health care system and positively impacts workplaces and, by extension, GDP and productivity.

In addition, if we spend less on health care, we can spend more on the second-biggest item in any government's budget: education. A population that achieves esteem and self-actualization is a population that strongly values all forms of education and invests in its education system to enable future generations to achieve esteem and self-actualization too.

The pandemic first attacked the middle part of the hierarchy, in other words, love and belonging. Think of the children and seniors who felt lonely and isolated. Think of the adults who get their sense of self from their jobs or their sporting activities, but they too found themselves stuck at home alone.

After that, the pandemic and inflation combined to attack people's safety needs and essential needs. Here are the repercussions of that: People are exhausted and stressed by the fear of not being able to make ends meet; children are just as anxious because they sense their parents' stress better than anyone else, even though kids try to hide their stress and its causes from their parents. Parents usually try to preserve their kids' innocence and the beauty and generosity of childhood.

The current solution of increasing the GST credit alleviates the stress of people who face the prospect of not being able to meet their basic needs. The fact remains that it is a temporary measure, yet it can do some good, especially as people must purchase necessities for the approaching winter season. However, the current situation will have short-, medium- and long-term impacts. We must have a medium- to long-term vision when implementing solutions. If not, there will be dramatic repercussions for the health and education systems, work environments, communities and community organizations. We cannot let people become overwhelmed by the stress of seeking the means to meet basic needs and the need for safety.

I will come back once again to Maslow's hierarchy. To make it possible for people to reach the higher levels of the pyramid by meeting their physiological needs, safety needs, need for love and belonging, we must have a holistic vision and work on the root causes of the problems in order to find lasting solutions. I would like to humbly and simply list some potential solutions. Unfortunately, I do so without explaining them, but we could talk about this further. I simply want to provide some food for thought.

Since 2016, 100,000 social housing units should have been built every year, but they were not. We need to increase funding so we can make up for some of that delay, which has a direct impact on the current price of housing. Then, we must maintain the funding so that such “gaps” in construction never happen again.

Quebec and Canada are welcoming places. Newcomers must have access to adequate housing, without forcing us to neglect the desperate needs of First Nations or of other segments of the population who have been in Canada for years or even decades.

I remind members that social housing offers rent that represents less than 30% of the tenants' income. It is not 10% off the price of a $2,500 a month apartment rental. For this type of housing, it makes more sense for projects to be overseen by community organizations whose mission is to provide relief to people, instead of by companies whose mission is only to make a profit.

As we have been saying for a long time, inflation has a direct impact on people with fixed incomes. There are those over the age of 75, but there are also those aged 65 to 74, and we must enable them to catch up with inflation and access a tax credit that would allow them, if they so wish, to go back to work and earn a little more, without having their guaranteed income supplement or pension clawed back.

We must also think about developing our regions. Canada is full of beautiful regions to discover, and we must develop them. To do this, we need better means of transportation. It would be wonderful if we had a railway system worthy of the 21st century, not the 19th century. We need companies that will settle in our regions and young people who want to follow them to take advantage of tax credits for new graduates who go work in the regions. I would also like to see an energy transition that allows people to have electricity and heating without falling prey to speculation.

In short, the GST payment is a good thing at this point in time. However, as elected officials, we have a duty to protect the dignity of the less fortunate. It is both possible and necessary to do so in the long term. As elected officials, we must stop thinking only in terms of polls, the next election or the issues of the day.

We need to think in terms of the next 10 to 50 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 is a part of the solution for assisting people through inflation.

There is no one issue, as the member rightfully said, that causes inflation. We could talk about the war in Europe, the pandemic or supply issues. There is a number of factors to it. Canada is doing relatively well in comparison to other countries. Having said that, there is a need for us to respond.

Bill C-30 is one of three pieces. There is Bill C-30, the next one is Bill C-31, for the dental and rent subsidies, and then we also have the disability legislation. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on the other two pieces of legislation, because they complement this particular piece and indirectly, if not directly, deal with some of her other concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not against this bill. However, as I said at the end of my speech, these are temporary solutions to deeply rooted problems that call for long-term vision, not just a vision for the next few months.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the Bloc come on board with doubling the GST, which would provide help to people right now.

What I am really concerned about, in the discussion around people who need help, are workers and ensuring seniors get the help they need. I have heard the member speak in support of getting seniors the help they need. Most seniors do not have enough money saved and they rely on CPP. We are hearing Conservatives fighting against increases to the CPP, calling it a payroll tax, when in fact it is ensuring that people who are retiring have retirement security. It is deferred wages.

Would my hon. colleague agree that it is important to increase the CPP, and that it is not a payroll tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am lucky because I can put a little money in an RRSP or a pension fund myself. Not everyone can do that.

Quebec's and Canada's pension funds are there for people who have worked hard their whole lives to raise their kids and put food on the table. They may not have been able to save money, or if they did, they had to withdraw it because they went through tough times.

That is why the Canada pension plan exists. It enables people to save without really thinking about it. It is necessary. It is essential. It is no more a tax than our RRSPs are.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. Her speeches always include little snippets that are very poetic and moving.

My question has to do with temporary foreign workers. Quebec has jurisdiction over labour matters. We have the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail and the Conseils régionaux des partenaires du marché de travail. Each sector is analyzed to determine labour needs, but the temporary foreign workers program comes under Ottawa's jurisdiction. It is appalling. You have to knock on one door and then another and another. It is ridiculous.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, foreign workers are essential to our businesses. Everyone can agree on that.

What is not essential during a labour shortage is forcing businesses to conduct studies to prove that their employees are essential. Make no mistake, they are essential. People from other countries are not brought in if they are not needed. Quebec needs to have full jurisdiction over foreign workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to do.

I feel privileged to rise to speak to Bill C-30 and other pertinent essential measures that I will be commenting on in the House.

People are already experiencing the pain of the “prerecession” in the wake of the pandemic and the Liberals' financial complacency concerning government spending. We have already seen many businesses close down, while others have decided to reduce their hours or have been forced to raise the price of their services considerably.

There is also the price of gas, which automatically increases transportation and supply costs. Then there is inflation, rising poverty and the feeling that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Within these walls, which insulate us from the realities of everyday life, it can seem like an abstract notion. However, I can confirm that it is very real and palpable within our communities.

In addition, there are the so-called multiplier effects, such as the shortcomings of the EI system. It is giving many dedicated workers nightmares right now. For the past few weeks, seasonal workers, such as those who work in tourism, have been watching as their employers shut down their businesses temporarily or, even worse, permanently. Some will face this reality in the coming days.

Companies may be forced to significantly reduce their activities due to a dearth of tourists. Employees, qualified and competent people, will now be deprived of the special assistance received during the pandemic and will return to square one. Worse still, they will return to where they were left before the pandemic, with employment insurance eligibility criteria that disqualify many seasonal workers.

These people who have been without work for several months nonetheless stay in the region. They stay and they buy local products with that EI money. Without that, they would have to relocate to urban centres to find permanent employment. They will no longer receive EI despite being involuntarily without work or unable to find another job, even though the employer and the employee paid into the fund.

Many are unable to fill vacancies in the regions because their location makes transportation extremely difficult or because their experience and diploma do not correspond to the jobs that are available. A housekeeping employee in a seasonal hotel cannot be asked to work on the snow cannons at a ski resort. Some things cannot be done. There are situations where it is just not possible.

It is simply awful to ask Canadians to find work 70 kilometres from home while starving them, when they have no means of buying a car and there is no public transit in the community. There are many major repercussions. Let us imagine if all these people in the regions, forced by the government's indifference and unwillingness to adapt employment insurance criteria to the realities of the regions, leave their region, their home, their social and family life to move closer to the major centres to find non-seasonal work. How would the seasonal tourism businesses make up for that exodus of qualified workers? Whatever happens, businesses, no matter how dynamic, would close their doors due to a labour shortage. Without urgent action by the minister, those workers will leave our regions. The closing of tourism businesses, or a change in their vocation, is the death of a fundamental part of regional vitality.

Let us call a spade a spade. Although there is resilience, and there is even more in the regions, it has its limits. It can no longer be counted on. Some may want to come relax in the magnificent nature of our beautiful regions in a small cozy accommodation with personalized comfort and a very gourmet meal. I can tell them that it will no longer be as possible if the minister does not recognize seasonal work. It is over. It is serious, sad and deplorable, from an economic and human standpoint. It is even more so when we consider the principle of EI, which is a fund that workers and employers pay into, and realize that it is government management that is failing.

Think of the competent and indispensable hotel housekeeper who cannot turn into a snow cannon operator, or a sommelier who cannot turn into a line worker, or a single mother who needs a job to provide for her family and who cannot work the night shift as a personal support worker, but who could work at a restaurant during the day, even if it is only seasonal work. There are hundreds of examples like these, hundreds of people out there who no longer have any income right now because they do not qualify for EI and cannot take jobs that are available outside their area. That is the reality.

Not to worry, I will get to Bill C-30, because there is an important connection to make. It is fine to provide support measures in the form of cheques that make the Liberal government look good. The Bloc Québécois agrees with that. In fact, that has been one of our proposals for some time now.

There are simple measures that can be taken quickly to save many families in the regions from a financial crash and to support tourism businesses at the same time. There is a desperate need. We hope that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development will listen to reason and take swift action to immediately readjust the eligibility criteria for seasonal workers. That would be an important and appropriate gesture to help people at this time, just like temporarily increasing the goods and services tax credit by sending a cheque. A cheque sure is popular in politics, is it not?

In any case, the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑30, since it brings in a measure that we had previously suggested.

The Liberals' election platform, with its $100 billion in scattershot spending, did not take this approach whatsoever. The Bloc is focused on the green recovery, and that is where the resources should be going. The financial aid that the government provided during the pandemic to support families, workers and businesses was necessary. If it had not done this, the outcome would have been much worse, but the real challenge of the economic recovery is playing out now. We are not against public spending, we are against waste.

The Bloc Québécois immediately called for adjustments to assistance programs to make them more efficient and avoid a unilateral approach. The aim is to better respond to the difficulties facing workers and businesses while limiting expenditures. The Liberals took far too long to review the programs. We have the same message when it comes to stimulus: yes to stimulus spending, provided it is targeted and thoughtful and serves to help those most affected by the situation.

Once again, this must include things like social housing, the purchasing power of seniors, maintaining the independence of the central bank and fighting the labour shortage, which I have discussed at length. It also includes creating a tax credit for graduates, appreciating experienced workers, transferring the temporary foreign workers program, reforming employment insurance, strengthening supply chains and the competition regime, and reducing our dependence on oil.

In closing, I would like to address the residents of the most beautiful riding in the world and all other Quebeckers. I want to assure them that the Bloc Québécois will continue to work hard and pester the government until the minister understands the absolute urgency of adjusting the mandatory eligibility criteria for employment insurance.

I would like to quote one of the most famous Quebec bands, Harmonium:

We brought someone into this world
Maybe we should listen to them

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say, that was a unique and special touch to the conclusion of her speech. It is nice to see the Bloc and, in fact, all members of the House, recognizing the true value of this legislation, which would support Canadians in all regions of the country. It is estimated that 11 million Canadians would benefit from the passage of this legislation.

I understand and hear the message from the Bloc, that we have to look at ways we can make some changes more permanent. One that I would cite, even though it is one that I know they have a little bit of difficulty with, is the 10% increase for seniors 75 and over. I appreciate that the Bloc have some challenges with that particular issue.

This one piece of legislation is complemented by other pieces of legislation, the dental care and rental housing legislation and the disability legislation. Could I get the member's thoughts on those pieces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is true, I do tend to personalize my speeches somewhat. It is a bad habit, but I think it brings a little light to this house.

I want to correct my colleague's comments. We are not against helping seniors over the age of 75. Rather, we are frustrated with the situation of those aged 65 to 75. We have always debated and advocated for this. We want help for seniors starting at age 65. We all agree that seniors are the hardest hit by the situation. Their fixed income, combined with inflation, is a disaster.

I invite my colleague to pass that on to his government.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member with interest when she spoke about wanting to change eligibility for seasonal workers. In my constituency office in Kelowna—Lake Country, it is one of the issues our team is spending the most amount of time on, and it sounds like that is so for this member as well.

We have a very onerous, expensive and redundant process where, every year, people have to go through the application process. Especially in the farming communities, the same people come year after year, yet they have to do this paperwork every year.

What are the member's thoughts on that? Could she go into more detail on her thought process?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very constructive question, which allows me to continue with my idea. In fact, what we would really like to see, very simply, is for the new employment insurance reform bill to include a status for workers who hold seasonal jobs. I like to emphasize that because it is not the worker who is seasonal, it is the job. I think that, in a specific context that meets certain criteria, we could establish a seasonal worker status with criteria that differ slightly from the usual criteria.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was full of progressive ideas. The underlying issue here is that obviously Canadians are suffering. We have very high inflation, and one of the foundational questions I have, and it is one we struggle with in the NDP, is what the cause of this problem is. We see unbelievable price increases at gas stations, grocery stores and in the insurance industry. We see massive profits being made by corporations driving prices up.

My hon. colleague talked about workers. Does she agree with the NDP that the inflation today is caused by greedflation, by corporations raising prices beyond reasonable levels, or does she blame workers in this country for causing the situation, just as the Conservatives do?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very big question and it deserves a very big answer, but I think members would agree that we do not have much time. I quite agree with my colleague.

However, I believe fundamentally in the economic resiliency of our regions, as well as our urban centres and businesses. There has to be a balance, and we must achieve it domestically, not by letting foreign companies and investments boost or extrapolate production and supply costs, which is the crux of the problem.

We really need to take care of our own business. That is where things happen. That is how we will overcome and slow the skyrocketing inflation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

As always, I am proud to stand in the House with the privilege of representing the constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-30, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, meaning Canadians would get a one-time tax rebate. This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to double the GST/HST credit for six months, increasing the annual GST/HST credit amount by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year.

Bill C-30 is another one of the Liberal government's attempts at a flashy headline that really would do nothing to address the core issues when it comes to our affordability crisis in this country. The Liberals want to think that they are saving Canadians, when, in fact, the Liberal government has put Canadians in this affordability crisis. Government supports should offer real results for Canadians who need it most, especially when we find ourselves in this cost of living crisis.

The GST rebate proposal would provide welcome immediate relief that Conservatives will support. However, let me be clear that we do not support the incompetence of the Liberal government and its inability to manage the Canadian economy while Canadians suffer to put food on their tables. There needs to be a long-term solution to address the real problem across our country. Inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rate in nearly 40 years.

Just last week in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we had a witness from Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada testify for the ongoing study of the mental health of young women and girls. I asked if they believe our current cost of living crisis is affecting our kids. Their answer, as indicated in the blues, was, “we have multiple anecdotes of families who are reporting increased stress. We're hearing it from the kids...We're actually meeting with our clubs in the next two weeks, and I think we'll hear more of those stories, where they've said food costs are a problem.”

When moms, dads and caregivers are stressed or worried about how to put food on the table, pay rent, or keep the lights on, that tension is noticed by our kids. The Liberal government is downloading to our children its inability to manage the economy. Children do not need the burden of adult problems. They have endured so much these past few years, and they need to be children.

I have said it many times before in the House. The affordability crisis is a mental health crisis, and it is being exacerbated by the hurtful policies of the government. The government had the opportunity to support our Conservative motion to give Canadians a chance to breathe and to give them the break that they needed, as we put forth our motion to stop the planned increased taxes on January 1. However, instead of giving Canadians a break, the Liberals voted to tax their hard-earned paycheques even more.

The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes, at 43%, than it does on basic necessities such as food, shelter and clothing combined, which is 36%. By comparison, 34% of the average family's income went to pay taxes in 1961, while 57% went to the basic necessities. When families are spending more of their income on taxes than on any other necessity, coupled with the current rate of inflation, there is an affordability crisis. Something has got to give. Canadians are hanging on by a thread.

Next Monday is Thanksgiving, and Christmas is just 81 days away. With Canadians struggling to get by with the basic necessities, how are they ever expected to manage the extra spending that the holidays require? The price of turkey is up 15%. The price of potatoes is up 22%, and the price of cranberries is up 12%.

The one-time help proposed in this bill would give an average of $467 per family. An individual without a child earning more than $49,200 will get nothing. A family of two adults and two kids earning more than $58,500 will get nothing. When groceries are up almost 11% and when inflation is at a 40-year high, this is not acceptable.

I want to read another message from Emily, who wrote to me. She said, “You know, it is interesting. I am even starting to get worried, and we own our house, one car, little to no commute, one child, emergency account, early to mid-forties. My husband is a professional engineer making middle six-figures and we are starting to get a little nervous, so imagine others.” With the impact of both parents having to work and not having a choice, and the impact on our kids, the mental health crisis is out of control.

The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table, and this does not even consider the rising cost of gas with the government's carbon tax or the cost of housing. Do members know who this stress and burden is passed down to when parents are stressed about paying for the necessities? It is our kids, especially our teenage kids. They are our future.

Mr. Owen Charters of the Boys and Girls Club of Canada explained it best when he said:

Too often, kids who come from underprivileged homes or homes where there's a single parent take on a burden that is like that of an adult at a very young age. They worry about those adult issues. They may not always let their parents know, because part of being a responsible member of that family is not to let that burden fester on the other members of the family. We see that as part of single-parent families especially or families where the parents are dysfunctional.

The irony in all of this today is that the Liberals want Canadians to believe they are saving them, when in fact they are responsible for the problem. They want Canadians to think they are coming up with solutions, when in fact they created this. It is like they are cutting someone's leg then offering a band-aid and patting themselves on the back for helping. It is ridiculous.

The jig is up, and Canadians know what the Liberals are doing. The government continues to think more spending will help with the cost of living. No, it does not work that way. How does taking home less from a hard-earned paycheque help the economy or mental health? How is tripling the carbon tax helping Canadians? It is not. Do members know what we need to make food and housing? It is gas. Do members know what Liberals want to do? They want to increase the tax on gas, so the already outrageous food and real estate prices are going to keep going up.

Do members know what happens to people when they do not have hope and when they cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel? They get depressed. They get anxious. They use drugs and alcohol to escape the pain, and they might even attempt suicide.

We will fight for the people. We will fight for their paycheques, and we will fight for this country. Canadians deserve better. The children deserve better. Our seniors deserve better. They gave their lives to this country, and so many of them cannot even afford to buy milk.

We do not need to burden our children with adult problems, and they do not need to see their parents suffer. The Conservatives will keep pushing the Liberals to wake up, do the right compassionate thing and stop their planned tax hikes. I encourage all of the members on that side of the House to stand up to their government, because I know they are getting the same calls to their constituency offices that we are getting.

Canadians are suffering, and we were elected to bring their voices here, not to take this voice to them. It is wrong, what the government is doing. It is wrong, how it is making Canadians suffer and not recognizing the pain that is happening in this country. Yes, I will support Bill C-30, because Canadians need a break, but I will not allow the Liberals to forget that the reason Canadians need help is because of their inability to manage our economy.

I will continue, like all of my Conservative colleagues, to push the government to invest in development, not relief. That starts with not taxing Canadians and letting them keep their hard-earned paycheques.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the recounting of the increase in the price of things the hon. member mentioned. I am wondering if she can reflect on the fact that there have been no tax increases, yet a litre of gasoline out at the coast is $2.40 or more right now. Food is up, but there has been no additional tax on food. However, the big oil companies are producing record profits and the big grocery chains are producing record profits.

Maybe she can tell the rest of us who is really responsible for the inflation we are seeing on the two key things that are driving the inflation rate: food and petroleum products.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government runs the country. The government is responsible for the economy.

I am not sure how, with all of the things that the member addressed, the cost of gas, the cost of groceries, how increasing taxes is going to help Canadians when they cannot take home the paycheque they went to work to get.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with my hon. colleague that the current economic situation facing Canada is indeed concerning. We have a lack of energy sovereignty, as has been pointed out by my Conservative colleagues. We are failing to repatriate lost manufacturing jobs. We have a lack of affordable housing. In fact I think we have a crisis in affordable housing.

However, it was Conservatives who opposed and dismantled Petro-Canada, Canada's national company, which would have helped achieve national energy security. It was Conservatives who signed neo-liberal trade deals that saw capital flee Canada, with all of the jobs, to low-wage jurisdictions. It was Conservatives who cancelled CMHC's social housing function a generation ago, helping to lead to the situation we face today.

Why should Canadians have any faith that Conservatives could fix problems today, when they played such an important role in creating the problems we are facing now?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we are here to discuss Bill C-30 and a one-time tax rebate that is going to cost Canadians even more money. Spending more money rather than investing in our country is not going to be the solution we need.

Right now in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha, people are ready to build houses. They are ready to help with the housing crisis, yet they have to wait months, sometimes years, because of the administrative, bureaucratic nonsense that prevents people from achieving what they need to do. The government needs to get out of the people's way, let them achieve their work and let them earn their paycheques, not tax them.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member outlined, explained and showed passion and compassion specifically for seniors, but really specifically for our young adults and our teenagers. I have three teenagers, young adults, so I understand where she is coming from.

With regard to the mental health issue, and with regard to putting food on the table and putting fuel in vehicles, would the hon. member agree with me that the Prime Minister and the Liberals are out of touch with everyday Canadian families?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree absolutely, and I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that this week is Mental Illness Awareness Week. The Liberal government promised $4.5 billion to mental health transfers, and not one dime has been sent. We have a mental health crisis in this country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. Louis St. Laurent was the prime minister of Canada during the 1950s. He was the one who, among other things, balanced the budget after the Second World War.

I make that historic reference today because I want to talk about the issue of public finances, the direct repercussions they have on Canadian families, and the management by this Liberal government, for seven years minus two weeks now, of Canadian public funds. Their management is really very different from that of one of their Liberal predecessors, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who balanced the budget after the Second World War.

The bill we are considering today has in its title the words, “cost of living relief”. The Liberal approach is not the best one, in our point of view, since the best way to relieve the cost of living for Canadians is not so much by giving them money, but by leaving more money in their pockets, which is exactly the opposite of what these people have done for the last seven years minus two weeks.

What have we seen in the seven years the Liberals have been in power?

Seven years ago, during the 2015 election campaign, they promised to run three modest deficits and then achieve a zero deficit in 2019. Instead, there were three major deficits that kept growing and, in 2019, the zero deficit promise was thrown away. We are paying for it today with staggering debt and high deficits.

Some people will point out that the Liberals had to deal with a pandemic. Yes, of course, but they were already having a hard time being economical and responsible with the economic prosperity that we left behind after our time in government. Do not forget that we left them a balanced budget and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. However, they took advantage of that and spent lavishly.

It is becoming clear that inflation is the number one problem for all Canadian families. This government has not done the one thing that all other industrialized countries, particularly our G7 partners, have done. Whether it is Japan, France, England, Italy, Germany or the United States, under Joe Biden, the current Canadian Prime Minister's good buddy, the other six G7 countries have all lowered taxes and the tax burden on their citizens at some point in recent months. All the G7 countries have done so, except Canada under this Liberal government.

That is not the right approach.

The more money people have in their pockets, the lower the cost of living. The more money is printed, the more inflation rises. This is a fundamental economic principle, but one that this government has not wanted to embrace. For months now, we in the official opposition have been calling on the government to follow the lead of all the other G7 countries and lower taxes. It did not do that.

Worse, the very least the government could do to ease the burden on Canadians during this inflationary time is not increase taxes. On January 1, there will be an extra charge for employment insurance. This will affect everyone.

To be clear, we are in favour of setting money aside at the right time, but we are against taking money out of taxpayers' pockets for additional spending today. That is the principle we should be respecting.

Worse yet, on April 1, the government plans to increase the Liberal carbon tax. It does not want to increase it by a little bit. It wants to multiply it not by one or two, but by three. The Liberal government wants to triple the Liberal carbon tax on April 1.

Every Canadian family is struggling because inflation is increasing, and now the government wants to take advantage of this horrible situation that Canadian families are going through and raise taxes. That is outrageous.

What planet do these people live on? Not only are they not cutting taxes as the leaders of every G7 country have done, but they are going to triple them. Some will say that that does not apply to Quebec. Just a minute. The Liberal carbon tax did not apply until now.

That is because Quebec has a cap-and-trade system. I should know that because I voted for it when I was a member of the National Assembly. Thus, in Quebec, the Liberal carbon tax does not apply because the revenue generated is about the same. However, what will happen in four or five months when the Liberal government triples the Liberal carbon tax?

My colleague asked that question yesterday. The minister replied that he would give him a briefing since he did not understand how it works. However, it was a very simple question. Does tripling the Liberal carbon tax affect Quebec, yes or no? We have been unable to get a clear and precise answer. It is not looking good for Quebeckers. We will have an opportunity to discuss this again with the Quebec government that was re-elected just two days ago.

Increasing taxes, increasing the tax burden, is not the best way to reduce the cost of living. The best way is to let Canadians hang on to more of their money to mitigate the impact of inflation, which is affecting us all.

Facts are facts, and the facts are disturbing for sure. As we speak, Canadians are paying, on average, 43% in taxes, which is more than they spend on food, housing and clothing.

What worries me most in all this is food. If there is one basic good we have to protect, it is food. This is not about indulgences, sweets and treats. This is about a basic need, the need to eat. I talked about that in the House on Monday. Last Friday, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I attended an event in support of Comptoir Agoshin, a food bank in Wendake. I also attended the grand opening of a community fridge in Val‑Bélair. The fact is, these two organizations exist to provide food aid for people in need. The people in charge told me they cannot source enough to meet demand. People who used to donate not that long ago are now coming in for help.

For a G7 country, that is just terrible. Canada is rich because of its people, its resources and the work done by its citizens. If a G7 country's food banks cannot meet demand, that is bad news for all Canadians. When butter costs 17% more, bread costs 18% more, pasta costs 30% to 32% more, and soup costs $20 more, basic needs are being taken away. There is a reason that, unfortunately, four out of five Canadians are trimming their food budget because of inflation. That is not a good thing. It is very concerning.

That is why we must tackle the inflation problem directly, in a positive and constructive manner. We know that it is a global problem. I am sure my friends across the way will say that inflation is not just happening in Canada, it is everywhere. I would reply that taxes have been cut everywhere except in Canada.

This government is greedy. This government is all too happy to take money out of Canadians' pockets, even when it comes to food. People will say that gas has nothing to do with food. On the contrary, the food on our supermarket shelves does not fall from the sky. It is transported. It comes from somewhere. When it is transported, it is highly likely that the vehicle that transported it consumed energy, which is often gas. The Liberal carbon tax has a direct impact on that.

The same goes for production. There is no agricultural production in my riding, but all my colleagues who have farms and farmers in their ridings are telling us about the real and painful consequences that the higher gas taxes will have for farmers, especially with what is coming in April.

We have to watch this government and make sure it does not triple the Liberal carbon tax. That is what it plans to do.

That is why we have serious reservations about this government's approach to the management of public funds and the inflation crisis. We seriously urge the government to rethink its position and to lower taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, when my Conservative friends campaigned, they knocked on doors and told Canadians they supported a price on pollution. Well, a lot has happened since. They have a new leader, in particular, and now the Conservatives are back to being climate deniers.

[An hon. member]

All hail the leader.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Whatever happens on the floor of this chamber is okay. What happens in the lobby is great. Let us all try to keep the doors closed. Let us all work together on that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the Conservatives did a flip-flop with their new leader. Many would now say that all Conservative MPs are breaking a promise with regard to dealing with climate change. That is fine. What I do not necessarily care for is when the Conservatives try to misrepresent the facts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that a majority of the constituents of Winnipeg North are actually getting more money back than they are paying into the price on pollution, yet that is not what we would take as being said here.

How do the hon. member and his colleagues justify telling their constituents that they no longer support a price on pollution when they campaigned on it? Why try to mislead Canadians when a majority of them are actually receiving more money, as opposed to the so-called “triple, triple, triple” or “double, double”, whatever the Conservatives want to call it?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in two weeks, I will celebrate the seventh year that I have known my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. It is a real pleasure to sit with him, even if we totally disagree, especially on the facts.

Let me be clear.

Barely a month ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a report that says in black and white that 60% of Canadians do not get as much back as they pay into the Liberal carbon tax.

Earlier, during question period, I heard the Prime Minister speak.

The Prime Minister was so proud to say that, six years ago, he tabled that reality and tabled putting a price on pollution. The result is that the price is high and pollution is up.

The government has never met its targets, yet today, it has the gall to lecture us. It needs to start meeting its targets. Only then we can discuss this further.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I can assure my colleagues that I will not sing my question.

I would like my colleague to comment on his new leader's rather populist position on Canada's central bank. He wants to fire the governor even though the Bank of Canada is doing exactly what it needs to do to control inflation.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a particularly apt song lyric springs to mind: “C'est une langue belle”, it is a beautiful language. However, I will restrain myself. I would like to acknowledge the presence of my hon. colleague.

Ultimately, printing money is what drives inflation. That is why Conservatives believe that the most important thing a government can do is leave more money in people's pockets. That is the first thing the government should do to fight inflation effectively.

A government can leave more money in people's pockets by not raising taxes. We have been asking the government to lower taxes for over a year, but it has not done so. Every other G7 country has, but not Canada's Liberal government. All we are asking the government to do now is, if nothing else, to refrain from increasing the tax burden and raising taxes, but the Liberals are refusing to do that or commit to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were glad to see the Conservatives finally get on board with the New Democrat idea to double the GST credit for Canadians as a way to get money into the hands of the people most impacted by and most vulnerable to the high inflation we are experiencing right now. We believe as New Democrats that we need solutions that actually support families and help workers deal with inflation and the rising cost of living.

The member talked about other countries around the world that are doing things. He even mentioned Britain. The Brits gave tax cuts to the rich and their economy crashed. Their pound has taken a nosedive. However, one thing the Brits did do a good job of is going after big oil with an excess profit tax.

This week, the CEO of Shell, here in Canada, said that governments need to tax energy producers to help people deal with the soaring cost of fuel. This was not the leader of the official opposition, the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment, who are all standing up for big oil as the gatekeepers for big oil. This was the CEO of Shell noting the importance of making sure that energy producers pay what they owe to lower people's bills. It makes sense and Canadians deserve better.

Does my colleague not agree with the CEO of Shell that they should pay their fair share instead of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We are almost completely out of time and I want to let the member answer.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comment by my colleague from the NDP. We shall pay respects to each and every idea. It is why when we talk about taxation and putting a price on pollution, we say the Liberals have the ambition to triple the price on pollution that they impose on Canadians. It is not the right thing to do to triple a tax when we are addressing the inflation crisis.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be part of this debate and to talk about a number of issues.

On Bill C-30, it is interesting to start this discussion by reminding Parliament in particular, because the public does remember this, that it was actually the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney who brought in the GST. It was then Jean Chrétien who campaigned against getting rid of the GST. Later on, it was Stephen Harper who brought in the HST and added new taxes, including taxes on hospital visit parking.

I find it very ironic, given the blame going back and forth, that there is no recognition of the fact that this taxing process creates a vehicle, at least in the short term, to get money to Canadians. That is the real issue. It is not necessarily what is at stake for members of Parliament and their political parties. It is what is taking place in the public right now.

In fact, in the public right now, not only is inflation an issue, but a series of cost of living problems have taken place over a number of years. It is why the NDP has been pushing for immediate solutions. That is what this one is. It is not perfect by any means, but at least it is going to provide some money and relief in a way that is not going to drive inflation higher, and will go to the people who need resources right away.

I cannot tell members how many emails I have from people who cannot get by anymore. They have challenges with paying not only their rent, but their groceries and a series of other things. If we go back in recent history, one of the biggest lies of the last number of years is going to be that “we are in this together”. That is one of the things we are going to see economists, sociologists and others look back on to derive that there are winners and losers in the current restructuring of our economy, in many respects, because of COVID-19.

However, there are solutions to some of these matters. One of the ones we are proposing is the GST for right now, and in the long term, there is the dental care program. I will get into that more later, but I think it is important to recognize that many communities right now are seeking solutions outside of the federal government.

Today, I could not be home for one of the most exciting projects that I have seen in a long time. It has taken years to get here. It shows that we could have been there as a federal government for social housing for many years, but others found a way. Today, we broke ground with the Windsor Islamic Association to build five brand new buildings with more than 30 units for low- and middle-income seniors. It is going to be in Windsor West across from a mosque and has been 20 years in the making.

A number of different people were involved 20 years ago, including Mr. and Mrs. Peer, who we part of this as advocates. The neighbourhood was also involved, through Dr. Ahmed and Khalid Raana. A number of other individuals moved this through the city systems, including Atik, and other people put this together as well.

I want to thank our local city councillors. When we could not get this through, Councillor Jim Morrison worked very hard to get the community onside, which is very much a controversy at times with regard to new urban planning. He did a great job of that, along with Mayor Drew Dilkens and the rest of city council. All those individuals helped make this happen. The Rosati Construction Group was very good as well.

I think this is one of the things that can inspire other housing units, because we are seeing that people want these things to take place across our country. If Parliament is going to be bogged down and is not finding new, creative solutions, then we are going to have challenges. Bill C-30 is going to provide rent relief and is going to provide GST—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was so engrossed in my colleague's excellent speech that I did not want to interrupt, but he has forgotten to indicate in his speech that he is splitting his time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I like when we talk about ourselves in the third person.

I am sure the hon. member for Windsor West has an update for us there.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway. I talked about dental care at the very beginning and I was supposed to mention it at that time, so I will return to that subject later on. I appreciate the intervention, because I did not officially recognize that I was splitting my time.

I will continue. One of the things I want to move to is some of the conditions we put ourselves in with regard to inflation and competition, and the lack that we have. A number of members have referenced gas prices. This House, in the past, with credit to Dan McTeague, a former Liberal, and Paul Crête, a former Bloc member, and this is something I worked with them on as well, passed a gas monitoring agency. This was supposed to be implemented under Paul Martin but it was not.

What ends up happening is a lack of competition in this country, because there has been a lack of refinery development. We do not even have the same reporting process the United States have. One of the key things creating a lot of uncertainty and some frustration among Canadian consumers is that we do not even have a good advocate for that. The Competition Bureau has some powers but very little. At the same time, gas prices are going up with very little explanation, and more importantly, less accountability, which has a cascading effect on our entire economy.

If we look at the specifics related to this, how many more refineries had to be closed in Canada? There was Montreal, Oakville and a number of others, including one in Vancouver. What was taking place was vertical integration in the industries, and a country like Canada is facing the same challenges when it comes to telecoms and others. Right now, additional charges will potentially be placed on credit cards, as well as extra taxes, where Telus wants to introduce an extra tax on Canadians.

All these things start to eat away at the pocketbooks of Canadians. For as much as we do, such as increasing the GST in this instance, it is going to be lost because of increases in services and fees.

At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we looked at issues during the pandemic such as food costing and food workers. What is interesting is that the record profits companies were enjoying also included record bonuses for the CEOs. What is amazing, and we cannot do anything about this because of the lack of supports in our legislation, is that all major grocery chains ended pandemic pay for their workers on the very same day. That is as close to collusion as we can possibly get.

What was discussed at committee was the fact that the lawyers were okay because the CEOs could talk to each other under our current system. This comes from an industry the Competition Bureau fined for fixing the price of bread. They actually had to come to a settlement on that. The number one staple for lower- and middle-income Canadians, which is bread, was actually price-fixed by these organizations similar to a cabal that would take advantage of people. This is one of the problems we have with some of our industries, where we have this vertical integration.

I want to talk a bit about where we can find a difference, and that would be with Bill C-31, the dental care bill. The member for Vancouver Kingsway has done a great job. Often we talk about it in terms of helping the children, and later on it would be seniors, persons with disabilities and the general public. As the industry critic, I can say our health care has always been a standard principled point to get investment for the auto industry and manufacturing, even during the darkest times, when the United States, with its different states, or their federal government, and other places like Mexico were lowering wages. All those competitive factors that go against investment in Canada were offset by our having a public health care system that was paid for.

That is one of the major controllables we have. When we look at small businesses and medium-sized businesses, SMEs have really struggled. Now their employees, and even the people who own these businesses and often do not have any benefits themselves or have very basic ones, will have that relief. When it comes to labour unions with large contract negotiations, it will also open up the door and take the pressure off for increased medicines and costs that can create some types of labour disruptions because of fights over benefit programs.

One of the things I really want to highlight is that these types of structural improvements are more important in the long term than Bill C-30, which is something that is short term. The long-term investments we are going to get in this other package will be very significant.

I know from the CEOs, the investors and all the other different people, the labour negotiators, that those types of infrastructure pieces that we have, including employment insurance, which needs a major overhaul, are things that will get investment and keep investment in Canada. That includes research development and innovation. We have a terrible record for patent development to go to manufacturing, for bringing products to market compared to other parts of the world and for getting our university innovation together, but these are the assets that we have.

As I wrap up, I want to say that I appreciate the fact that Bill C-30 is not necessarily the biggest solution that we have for this problem of structural inequality, but at the same time, it is a measure we can control right now. The quicker we get the bill through the House, the quicker we can get more investment, more innovation and more jobs for Canadians, because it is a structural point that we need to compete.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues in the Conservative Party love tax cuts. I wonder if he could analyze the benefits that come from tax cuts. Who actually benefits if they cut taxes by let us say 5% across the board?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we ought to look at is comparing ourselves to the Americans, because they tax on worldwide profits. We do not do that here in Canada, so the tax cuts that can happen in Canada for some of the largest industries can actually get taxed in the United States. Therefore, Washington would get the money and not Canada. If we look at the oil and gas industry and others, they will benefit from that.

There is no doubt that we are out of step with respect to some of the other countries that are looking at corporate tax cuts and a number of different things, but I wish the Liberals would come onside regarding some of the larger corporations that are getting away scot-free on some of these things, especially when we look at the amount of money. It is amazing when we think about how 10 years before this time we had investments in companies, all kinds of different support programs and all the things we did throughout the pandemic. Meanwhile, there is no accountability for that right now because they are taking those profits and running with them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length, especially in the first half of his speech, about oil companies. I would like to take the opportunity to come back to that.

I would like to remind members that the price of gas jumped 33.3% between December 2020 and December 2021. That was a determinant of inflation. We can all agree that the price of oil is set in New York and London, and that there is not much we can do about it. However, since the price of oil is fluctuating a great deal, we could try to stop relying on oil with an energy transition that would shelter our economy from fluctuating oil prices.

Could my colleague comment on this Bloc Québécois suggestion?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it is really important. In fact, it is one of the reasons we need a national strategy, because we cannot do it province by province. That is one of the reasons the refineries, whether in western or eastern Canada or Ontario, were closed, because of a lack of competition. That has been the biggest problem we have, vertical integration in the industry. Therefore, one of the things we have to do to get investment in the industry is to get cleaner and greener, but more importantly to transition. That is why I think a lot of Alberta workers are also looking for options and real plans to deal with this. It is a complicated issue, but at the same time there are incredible possibilities. However, it is going to require a national strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for always fighting for Canadians and trying to get them the help they need. Obviously, doubling the GST rebate is something he has been advocating for.

He talked about dental care. He talked about really important values around helping people when they need help. We, as New Democrats, want a health care system that is head to toe, universal health care. With respect to mental health, we know that a lot of our emergency rooms right now and doctors' offices are full of people who need help with mental health. In fact, five million Canadians cannot even get access to a doctor and they are waiting for supports around mental health. The Liberal government made a $4.5-billion promise to Canadians so they can access mental health services, but it has not even rolled it out.

We know that over $50 billion is spent each year on mental health in the health care system. It is draining our health care system. There has been $6 billion in lost productivity. Does my colleague agree that mental health needs to be a top priority so that we can have a true universal health care system?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's work on mental health has been critical. We should do it for the right reasons, to start with.

Second, I will give economic reasons. Right now, countries are moving toward stealing some of Canada's infrastructure, which we have to compete to gain jobs and investments, through our health care system. Dental is now considered an asset, but the next one is going to be mental health. We have heard enough testimony through our industry committee right now that Canadians are being poached with online services and investment. If we want to keep them in our country as Canadian workers, then we need to invest in that right now. It would work really well.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Vancouver Kingsway, to bring their voices to this place, to reflect their experiences and to express how we can, in this House, best support them and their families and the businesses that operate in the wonderful riding that I am fortunate to represent.

Tonight, I rise to speak on Bill C-30, called the cost of living relief act, no. 1. Bill C-30 amends the Income Tax Act to double the goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax credit for six months, effectively increasing the maximum annual GST/HST credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year. What that means is that doubling the GST credit would provide about $2.5 billion in additional targeted support immediately to 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.

To give an example of the impact of this, single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234 and couples with two children up to an extra $467 this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average immediately. I want to stop at this point to say that this is an interim stopgap measure. By no means will this measure adjust or improve the systemic problems of the Canadian economy or address the long-standing inequities that exist along with the poor distribution of wealth in this country. In fact, the distribution of wealth has gotten worse over the decades, as wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and more and more people struggle. That has been the unmistakable, undeniable trajectory of how wealth and income have been distributed in this country over the last 40 years.

Given the horrible impacts of very unusually high inflation, New Democrats have been pushing for urgent action to address Canada's cost of living crisis for many months. We did not just start this yesterday. We identified this problem and have been advocating, working hard and fighting for Canadians in this place for the last six months.

If the Liberals and Conservatives had supported the NDP's call last May to double the GST credit, which is when we did that in this House, eligible Canadians could have received up to $467 before the start of the summer. This money would already be in Canadians' hands if the two major parties in the House had the same commitment to working people and marginalized Canadians that the NDP has in this country. However, it is the fact that not six months ago both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against the very proposal before the House today to provide this essential relief to Canadians.

New Democrats are now proposing that all parties work together to fast-track Bill C-30 through Parliament to ensure that people receive their increased GST rebate as soon as possible. Last week, Canadians were told by the Conservatives that they will have to wait even longer for relief, because the Conservatives refused to work evenings to get this urgently needed support out the door and, again, opposed the NDP's offer to work on an expeditious basis because we recognize the urgency of the problem today.

New Democrats are delivering real results for Canadians beyond this. The Canadian dental benefit will deliver up to $1,300 to parents with children under 12 who do not have access to dental insurance. The top-up to the Canada housing benefit, again proposed by the NDP in the last election platform will deliver a $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling so mightily with the cost of housing. This more than doubles the government's original commitment reaching twice as many Canadians as originally promised. Of course, doubling the GST credit will provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support, again, to some of the poorest and most needy Canadians in our country from coast to coast to coast.

Taken together, the result of these three NDP-driven proposals would mean that a family of two will receive between $3,000 and $4,000 due to NDP advocacy and hard work in this Parliament. That is the result of the NDP working for Canadians.

By way of background, the GST tax credit would help offset the financial impact of the GST for low- and modest-income people and families. That is the whole purpose of it. The credit is paid quarterly, in January, April, July and December, with benefit years beginning in July. The total annual value of this credit depends on family size and income. For the 2022-23 benefit year, eligible people can receive up to $467 for single people without children, $612 for married or common-law couples, $612 for single parents, plus $161 for each child under the age of 19.

I want to pause for a moment, because I have heard people in the House, mainly on the Conservative side, who have scoffed at the amount of money we are talking about here. They have said that this is not enough money, that these are crumbs and that this is an insufficient amount of money. I can tell them that to someone who is trying to live on $20,000 a year or $25,000 a year or $30,000 a year, $500 makes a big difference. I have said it before and I am going to say it again. It is easy for MPs, who make $185,000 a year minimum, to stand in this House, like the Conservatives have done, and tell Canadians that $500 does not mean much to them. That might mean a child's hockey; that might mean a child's school lunches; that might mean clothing for children for a year. That is what $500 means to people who are earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, and that is meaningful.

The GST credit is indexed for inflation on an annual basis using CPI index data, but of course, for this year, for the July 2022 to June 2023 benefit year, the value of that GST credit grew by only 2.4%, because it was based on the CPI from 2020 to 2021. Because those increases are based on the inflation rate from the prior year, the current GST credit does not reflect the unusually high inflation that Canadians are experiencing now. Depending on where they live, it is somewhere between 7% and 9%. That is why this money urgently needs to get into the pockets of these needy Canadians as soon as possible, and the NDP will work hard to do that.

I want to pause for a moment to speak a bit about why we are where we are, because there are different views on that in the House. Why are we experiencing inflation of 8% or 9%? New Democrats believe that this is inflation driven by prices, and of course the data and empirical evidence support that. This is not driven by wages. Wages have not gone up 8%. This is not driven by anything other than prices at the gas pump, in grocery stores and in insurance bills issued by companies in this country.

The other thing is that the Conservatives like to pretend that the inflation was caused by the deficit. That may play some role, but everybody who has been paying attention knows that when prices started to rise in this country, it started with the beginning of the COVID pandemic in 2020, when supply chains began to be interrupted around the world. Then we had the Ukraine-Russia war, which of course interfered with all sorts of supply chains and energy resources, and now corporations are clearly using the cover of this to drastically increase their profits and prices, taking advantage of the current situation. Whether it is the so-called FIRE industry, the finance, insurance and real estate industry, the oil and gas sector or major grocery stores, the data from economists is clear. Their profits, not their revenue, but their profits, are at dramatically higher levels.

In the case of the FIRE industry, it is up 24%. Nobody earning wages has received 24% more income. What would justify a 24% price increase? Oil and gas companies in this country are reporting record profits. They have never made more money. Then there are the financial institutions and grocery stores. Every Canadian who walks into a grocery store can see what is happening with prices.

The answer here is not to blame workers; it is not to attack politically. The approach here is to attack the source of the problem, and that means making corporations pay for their excess profits so that the money can to go to the government and it can use that money productively for Canadians, for things like dental care and other programs that will make such a huge difference to Canadians' lives.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who used to receive GST cheques, I understand how important it is to get that relief back. It is money that people paid and should get back, especially when they are below a certain income threshold.

It is a one-time payment, though. While getting people's money back into their hands is always a good principle, I wonder if the NDP would support increasing the GST payments in the longer term, so that rather than making a one-time payment, it would increase the amount of the GST rebates that people are receiving.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, not only for sharing his experience but also for that thoughtful question.

When the GST was first proposed in this country, by Conservatives and Liberals, the New Democrats opposed it, because it is a regressive tax. By definition, the 7% tax, as it was at the time, applied to everybody. When a young single mother making $20,000 a year pays the same tax in a store as a billionaire walking into the same store and buying the same object, it is clearly regressive, so bringing in a tax credit was an attempt to try to inject some progressivity back into the tax.

In theory, the suggestion by my hon. colleague is a good one. We should be injecting progressivity into our tax system, so that the amount of money being paid in tax goes up commensurate with the amount of income being made.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments, particularly on the notion of regressive taxation, whereby a tax applied to somebody earning $20,000 a year is a bigger hit than the same tax applied to somebody who is earning $200,000 a year.

However, I want to ask the hon. member to reverse that and talk about tax cuts that would affect individuals. If we follow the Conservative line and cut tax, which they have tried to do in the past, and we look at the relative income and the relative impact on people, who would benefit the most on a personal income tax basis from across-the-board tax cuts?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of being in the House for a period of time is that I have gotten to see different approaches to government.

I remember the Conservatives, when they were in power, being addicted to boutique tax cuts, which were essentially vote buying. They would appeal to a certain group of people and give them a tax cut to try to win their support. In my opinion, that is not the basis for sound tax policy.

The basis for sound taxes in any modern democracy should be based on a progressive system. I noticed that the Conservatives are talking a lot about the current economic system. They never talk about the massive profits made by large corporations. They never talk about the $30 billion that was left on the table last year in uncollected taxes from profitable corporations. What they do talk about is tax cuts, which benefit the rich and the wealthy. That is not an approach that could sustain a country like Canada, and it is unfair.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated that this bill and two others have measures to help people face inflation. That is fine. However, there may be other solutions available.

One of the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois was to enlist experienced workers. We know that some people who retire may be reluctant to return to the labour market to help out because the little income they would earn per year would be taxed. The Bloc proposed creating a tax credit for these people so this additional income would not be taxed. In addition to helping them cope with inflation, it could help alleviate the labour shortage.

Does my colleague agree with this proposal?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that creative solution. She is absolutely right that Canada is facing a labour shortage that is really unprecedented. As health critic I see this most acutely in the health care sector, where across this country, in every profession, we have a shortage of workers and they are facing a crisis.

Any measures and policies that are fair, that are targeted at getting people back in the workforce, and that encourage people to work are something we should be looking at. Any policy that discourages someone from entering the workforce is something that is unacceptable and should be changed.

I am happy to look at any proposal that the Bloc has in this regard.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-30, I want to look at what got us here today. When we look back at the history of the current government, which started in 2015, we see that there has not yet been a single budget that it has put forward that has been balanced. Every year, the government keeps borrowing more and more money. That is not to mention the carbon tax, which I will talk about later as well, and how much that is increasing the cost of everything that we produce.

I would like to tell a little story. Many times, when I am going to the airport, the cab driver will ask what I am going to the airport for. I will say I am going home, and they ask what I am doing here in Ottawa, so I say I am an MP. He puts a big smile on his face and he asks if I am a Liberal. I say no, that I am from Alberta, so I am a Conservative. He says, “Oh, the party that cuts and slashes.” I tell him that is one way of looking at it, but the way to really look at it is that we live within our means. I see a look on his face as though he is wondering what that is supposed to mean.

I explain it to him. Every year, if a person is driving a cab and makes $50,000 a year, for instance, but spends $80,000, how long are they going to survive financially, with borrowing or spending over $30,000? He says, “Well, not very long.” I say that is actually what the government is doing, year after year after year. I can see this look on his face that says, “This is actually going to have an impact on me.” Unfortunately, though, he makes another little smirk to say that it is okay, and that because government finances do not work the same as personal finances, it is okay for the government to borrow because it is not going to have an effect on us. Canadians now are realizing the effect of this borrowing year after year after year.

I know the government will talk about how, during COVID, it had to borrow so much money to do this. However, out of all the billions that the government borrowed, half of that actually went to COVID measures, and the other half went to various programs that the government had initiated. Therefore, there is quite a disconnect in the information that the Liberals talk about.

The next thing is that with the inflation rate that we have, it is hard to believe that the Liberals say wonderful catchphrases such as that inflation is a global phenomenon. That is like saying, “Where did this come from? We have no idea. It is just shocking.” I can understand that, when we have a Prime Minister who says he does not think about the financial program here, that he does not even think about monetary policy. That is what we get from a Prime Minister who is trying to run a country, so it is no surprise that our inflation rate is growing year after year after year.

Now, Canadians are looking for a reprieve. What is there to offer? It is double the GST back. Yes, it is a one-time payment that is going to help families, but really the cost of everything is escalating. It is unbelievable how families are not able to survive at this rate.

It is not only families. I think about the seniors I have spoken about. So many of them come to me and say, “What can we do? We had money in the bank. We had money in investments and they are just continually dropping. How can we survive?” They tell me that they planned into their eighties and nineties with no problems, but have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last while because of the inflationary prices that are going on to this day.

It is devastating what we are doing to Canadians here, and it is shameful what the Liberals have done to this country. That is what I am here to talk about the most: how they are not here to help Canadians. They love catchphrases. There is day care for $10 a day. It is great for young families; it is doing nothing for seniors, though. That is one of the things I really need to talk about.

I would like to thank the House for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-30.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 6:20, pursuant to order made on Monday, October 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, October 3, the division stands deferred until Thursday, October 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from October 5 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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, October 3, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-30.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #188

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare this motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.