Bill C-31

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2 (Targeted Support for Households)

An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing

Part 1 enacts the Dental Benefit Act , which provides for the establishment of an application-based interim dental benefit. The benefit provides interim direct financial support for parents for dental care services received by their children under 12 years of age in the period starting in October 2022 and ending in June 2024.
Part 2 enacts the Rental Housing Benefit Act , which provides for the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit.
Finally, Part 3 makes related amendments to the Income Tax Act , the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, they did. It was 400 billion dollars' worth.

Can this member give us his insight into what he thinks is causing inflation? Does he agree with the Conservatives' principal argument that we should not be spending money on this very important piece of legislation because it is just going to add to inflation, despite the fact that economists resoundingly say it will not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not go into the whole spiel on inflation; I do not have that much time here tonight. However, when we look at the extraordinary profits of oil and gas companies and the extraordinary profits of the big box grocery retailers, it is clear that they have taken advantage of this situation. Because of factors coming out of the pandemic and because of the war in Ukraine, prices have started to rise, and they have taken advantage of that and added their own excess profits on top of it. That is one of the biggest factors in inflation.

Perhaps some of the government spending did cause inflation. If we look around the world, Canada is in the middle of the pack when it comes to how bad inflation is. However, what economists have been saying about the measures we are talking about here tonight, such as dental care for people who need it, a housing top-up for low-income families struggling to pay their rents and the GST rebate that has been doubled, is that those kinds of targeted programs do not cause inflation. If the Conservatives are concerned about inflation rising because of this, the experts will say they are wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today on Bill C-31. From the outset, let me make it clear that I will be voting against this bill, because the NDP-Liberal government is driving up the cost of living. The more it spends, the more things will cost.

In reference to the commentary I just heard, Derek Holt, vice president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank, stated:

[I]t seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation.... Any belief that it relieves inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.

That is in reference to the government spending we are talking about here tonight.

The senior economist at the Bank of Montreal said, “We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment, but, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently...inflationary.”

Therefore, I would disagree with the previous speakers that the bill before us today will not impact inflation. I believe it will, and that is one of the primary reasons I will be voting against this bill tonight.

On the dental plan, which is the first part of this bill, I looked at it in the context of British Columbia. On page 4 of the legislation, paragraph (d) states:

they make the application in respect of a person who has received or will receive dental care services the costs of which have not been and will not be fully paid or reimbursed under a program or plan established by the government of Canada or of a province;

We have heard a lot tonight about the top-up being $650, but I am wondering how far that will actually go for children under the age of 12 who could be eligible for the program with parents with an adjusted income of up to $90,000. In the province of B.C., people can qualify for dental insurance, for example, if they are on income assistance. They get $2,000 over two calendar years and an additional $1,000 for anaesthetics, so I really hope that when this bill is studied at committee, the provisions on page 4, under paragraph (d), are looked at very closely in the context of the impact this will have, if any, for the people of British Columbia.

On the second part of the bill, I will acknowledge that $500 does go a long way for many people. One of the concerns I have is about how it will help people who are homeless and did not file taxes last year. Will they be eligible for this money? I do not know. I was thinking, when preparing for this speech, of a man named Darryl, whom I met at the truth and reconciliation event the other day. It got me thinking that Darryl suffered at St. Mary's Indian Residential School, where we had the event. He is homeless. He does have a community. He is supported by the friendship centre, but he still lives on the streets. Darryl is not going to benefit from the support being talked about here tonight.

I would be remiss as well if I did not mention how it relates to affordability. The average price for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver right now is $2,600 per month. That means the $500 will not cover a quarter of what someone has to pay to live in the most populous city in the province of British Columbia. That makes me wonder if this will have the economic impact that the government and the New Democratic Party believe it will have. In fact, I do not think it will have much of an economic impact, although I acknowledge it will, for one month, help those making up to $35,000. However, it will not address the structural challenges impacting the Canadian economy, which allow for prices to rise on a month-to-month basis right now.

I think the Government of Canada could be focusing on some other measures that would actually help address inflation and the cost of living. I mentioned Darryl earlier, from the truth and reconciliation event. What about indigenous solutions? The Auditor General has written many reports about the poor service delivery from Indigenous Services Canada that indigenous people have to deal with on a regular basis.

The other day, I went golfing with my friend Joey from Sq'éwlets First Nation. He talked to me about there being an ever-revolving door of representatives from ISC that his band has to deal with. Why is the government not right now focusing on helping indigenous people build more homes and making it easier to build more homes with Indigenous Services Canada? That could have a really big impact on addressing the affordability challenge and the disproportionate number of indigenous people who lack sufficient housing. That would have a real impact in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

During the last election, the Government of Canada talked a lot about the housing accelerator fund. In fact, it was one of the Liberals' premier promises. They said that by 2024-25, the Government of Canada would build 100,000 new homes by addressing some of the challenges that municipalities face. In other words, that would be red tape.

Here in the House of Commons, the opposition members talk a lot about red tape because it impacts so many of the people we represent. David Eby, who is running for the leadership of the New Democratic Party in B.C., actually agrees with the official opposition and put forward a plan that would cut red tape across municipalities in British Columbia. Even the Government of Canada agrees that cutting red tape would address affordability. Therefore, why are we not talking about something that is going to decrease the biggest expense that people are facing? That is the cost of a home and building homes.

I asked the government the other night how many homes it has built so far under the accelerator fund? They could not say a single one. The government needs to build more homes and work with the provincial governments to cut red tape at the municipal level so we can give people what they want.

The third thing we could do to address inflation relates to agriculture. As members know, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has some of the best agricultural soil found anywhere in the world. We grow blueberries. We grow wine. We produce more milk per capita than almost any other riding in the country. We have a thriving poultry sector. We grow a variety of vegetables as well. We are one of the key agricultural areas in all of Canada.

The other day, I was at the Agassiz Fall Fair, which is a celebration of Canadian and especially British Columbian agriculture. Farmer after farmer who spoke with me said that they were scared. Government wants to increase their input costs, which include insurance because that costs them money, but they said that if the government does what it plans to do they are effectively going to be out of business in some cases. Therefore, the government needs to provide business confidence to our agricultural producers to give Canadians what they want, which is locally grown, nutritious food that will reduce the costs that people are seeing at the grocery store right now.

We are so thankful for and so proud of the agricultural produce in the Fraser Valley and Fraser Canyon regions. The government needs to stand behind our farmers, get out of the way and say that it is not going to increase the fertilizer costs that would impact the rate of production we are seeing. Canada has a special role to play right now in addressing the global food crisis. Let us stand with our farmers. Let us help the world feed itself with nutritious Canadian food.

The fourth thing we need to look at is supply chains. It was just last year that British Columbia was effectively cut off from the rest of the country. With respect to Highway 3, Highway 1, the Duffey, the CP rail line and the CN rail line, we were cut off. The Port of Vancouver had a huge delay after that. What is the government doing to look at the structural transportation challenges that add additional costs to the movement of goods and people in this country? Every parliamentarian would stand behind faster transportation and the faster movement of goods. Let us work together and address that key problem.

The fifth thing that we need to address is the cost of government spending. It goes up and up and up, and people want some accountability. Under the current government the public service has grown by 24%, yet the service delivery has decreased substantially. All of our offices feel that, including immigration, CRA, CPP or whatever it is. Let us work together. Let us improve accountability and hold our public servants accountable to do the job that they are paid to do. Let us work together to see that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much incredible misinformation in that speech that I just do not even know where to begin.

I would point out for the member that at the beginning of his speech he said that spending government money, in particular in this program, would have an inflationary impact. He then later went on to talk about how giving people $500 would not affect the economy, and he said it twice. Which one is it? Is it going to have an inflationary impact or is it not? That is what he said. He should review the tape. Maybe he misspoke.

More importantly, the member talked about housing and said that the federal government should work with municipalities to cut red tape. I worked at the municipal level. I know the way that it works. He knows the way that it works. Every member in this House knows the way that it works. Municipality planning acts and their ability to change zoning and so on and so forth are 100% under the jurisdiction of provinces. He knows that. Why does he come to this place and say that the federal government should work with municipalities to remove red tape? It makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, it makes perfect sense, because the federal government holds the spending purse. It is the federal government that plays a large part in funding every single major infrastructure project across this country. The federal government could say to the City of Vancouver or the City of Surrey that if it wants a sky train, it better increase zoning to allow for affordable homes around transportation nodules.

Regarding the $500 rental subsidy, that would have a big impact on people's month-to-month. I understand that; I have been working since I was 12 years old. However, collectively, would that impact—

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

I started at nine.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from Kingston and the Thousand Islands continues to heckle me.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I only represent two of the Thousand Islands. The other 998 are primarily the responsibility of the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I do not know why he would say “Kingston and the Thousand Islands”.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Just to clarify, I saw the member for Kingston and the Islands and I do not believe he was heckling you. He was talking to another member across.

To remind hon. members, when someone is speaking, please be polite and respectful.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Kingston and the Islands, collectively, the measures before us today, as outlined by two of the big banks in Canada, will have an inflationary impact on the economy of Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of helping municipalities move forward in getting zoning and rezoning dealt with, the NDP was able to force the government to bring forward the accelerator fund. Part of that funding is, in fact, going to be dedicated to municipalities and local governments to help with that. This work is actually going to be under way, although the program is not fully developed and more work will be done.

That being said, the member talked a lot about housing and addressed the housing crisis. One of the issues impacting the housing affordability issue is the financialization of housing, yet real estate investment trusts are getting preferential tax treatment. In fact, they get government support by way of insurance coverage and mortgage coverage.

Would the member agree that the government should stop preferential tax treatment for these corporate landlords?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to the specifics of the financialization and/or corporate preferential tax treatment outlined by the New Democratic member from Vancouver. However, I can say that the rate of home ownership in Canada has decreased to a level that we have not seen in a generation. All political parties, especially mine, want to restore and maintain the hope of young people to have a reasonable chance of owning a home. We want people to be able to get a university or trades education. I want people to have the dream of being able to save up for a home and have a reasonable chance of getting it. That is being eliminated at a faster rate than we have ever seen in the history of Canada, and it is troublesome for our democracy.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member tell the House how hypocritical it is of the government to, on the one hand, want to spend all this money on rent relief and control, and then, on the other hand, on January 1 add significant payroll taxes, not only to employees but to employers? It is also going to triple the carbon tax on April 1. On the one hand it giveth, and on the other hand it taketh away.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the government could is stop raising taxes. People cannot afford food. They cannot afford gas. They cannot afford heat.

Why would the government not just change the personal exemption rate of $13,800, increase it and stop all this wealth redistribution? Let people keep more of their paycheques. That is the best thing we can do to help Canadians who are struggling right now.