Bill C-8

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations in order to
(a) introduce a new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses on qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality;
(b) expand the travel component of the northern residents deduction by giving all northern residents the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses even if the individual has not received travel assistance from their employer;
(c) expand the School Supplies Tax Credit from 15% to 25% and expand the eligibility criteria to include electronic devices used by eligible educators; and
(d) introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.
Part 2 enacts the Underused Housing Tax Act . This Act implements an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. It sets out rules for the purpose of establishing owners’ liability for the tax. It also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. Finally, to promote compliance with its provisions, this Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions aligned with those found in other taxation statutes.
Part 3 provides for a six-year limitation or prescription period for the recovery of amounts owing with respect to a loan provided under the Canada Emergency Business Account program established by Export Development Canada.
Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools.
Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proof-of-vaccination initiatives.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.72 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests. It also sets out reporting requirements for the Minister of Health.
Part 7 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to the economic update. I have a lot to say, but I will have to narrow it down.

Let me start with health transfers. This is important to me as a member for the Bloc Québécois, and it is important to Quebec as a whole, to my riding, Manicouagan, and to Canada as a whole.

Obviously, these transfers are not included here, and we are disappointed about that. We have known for a long time that the transfers are crucial, but the government may not have realized that yet.

Earlier, I heard several colleagues from different political parties say that this is the second year of COVID-19 and there may be a third, though I hope not, but that there is hardly anything about COVID-19 in the economic update.

My colleague from La Prairie brought it up again this afternoon. Some 85% of Canadians and 86% of Quebeckers are calling for these health transfers. For many years now, the government has limited, or, I should say, gutted, health transfers. It still refuses to index these transfers, which means that the 22% of expenses that the government currently covers is not enough. We want the government to provide 35% and index the transfers at 6%, but there is absolutely nothing in the economic update to that effect.

Everyone knows that COVID‑19 kills. That is one of the things that it does. It kills because the health care system cannot provide the services required and this is because the health care systems in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces have been damaged. When the money is not there, even though it is our money and we have responsibilities, it is hard, virtually impossible, to meet everyone's needs.

The federal government loves to boast and act the saviour when it claims that 80%, or $8 of every $10, as they like to say, of COVID‑19 spending came from the federal government. It is far from being a saviour, though, since we will never forget that this is taxpayer money and taxpayers want health transfers. I am using the word “taxpayer”, but I want to remind members that all provincial premiers and Quebec's premier, Mr. Legault, are calling for this as well.

I want to point this out because the government has presented an economic update that does not reflect reality and does not take these demands into account. The government likes to boast, though. It is happy, it struts around, acting proud of what it has achieved. I could also talk about two other measures that have not seen much progress. Not only is the economic update weak, but it might also be counterproductive in some cases.

To conclude, I would like to speak about jurisdictions. I am again asking the government to do its job. It needs to look after its own affairs and provide the provinces and Quebec with the money to look after theirs.

I spoke about responsibilities earlier. There is a huge fiscal imbalance, and Ottawa has so much money that it does not know what to spend it on. It should spend it on health, by sending the transfers and letting the provinces and Quebec manage that money for their own people, because they want to get out of this pandemic. It is not by crippling health care systems that the government will help Quebec and the provinces get through the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the Prime Minister stated, there are vaccines, yes, but there is all the rest too, including the health care system. The system needs substantial support. There was and still is a shortfall, and it only continues to grow because transfers are frozen.

I would also like to talk about the SMEs in my riding of Manicouagan, which is a vast, remote area covering 350,000 square kilometres of forests, fisheries and mines. There are obviously many natural resources and people all over the riding. SMEs make up a significant segment of our economy. In Quebec, approximately one-third of businesses are SMEs, but I note that the government has not really listened to them.

Of course there is the Canada emergency business account, but the government needs to listen to what small and medium-sized businesses want. The situation is evolving as we enter the third year of the pandemic. For example, SMEs had a hard time accessing the wage subsidy. They needed accountants and tax experts, but many of them could not afford those professionals, so they could not ask for help. All the business support programs in the world are useless if entrepreneurs cannot access them because of red tape and impossible criteria. The wage subsidy is great for people who already have enough money to access it, but that does not include small businesses. Members of the chamber of commerce in my riding, Manicouagan, would like to apply a third time. They would not necessarily need $60,000, but even $20,000 would help them stay afloat and survive. It would not be too hard to set up that mechanism.

It would have been easy to listen to these businesses and implement the measures they were asking for. The Bloc Québécois has proposed many other ideas for supporting small businesses, particularly with regard to loan forgiveness. The Bloc proposed that the percentage be increased in order to support these businesses based on their revenues at a time of great uncertainty. I am thinking of outfitters in my riding and their revenues. No one was visiting the outfitters during the first year of the pandemic, and the second year was extremely difficult for them because certain health measures prevented people from coming to the region.

I am pleased that the repayment deadline is postponed until 2023, because these businesses would not have been able to repay their loans quickly. The year 2023 may not be the right year either. I am therefore warning the government right now that it may have to extend that deadline as well, in order to give these businesses time to rebuild their financial health and get enough revenue coming in to be able to repay the loan and receive forgiveness. The Bloc is in favour of loans. However, we really want the percentage to increase.

We are also thinking about e-commerce. Of course this is very important where I come from. People in certain parts of my riding do a lot of their grocery shopping using the postal service. As I have often said in the House, this is very important to me. People have the right to live in remote areas and to occupy the land, and they need to be supported. We already have a great deal of inequity in our postal services compared to the rest of Canada. Northern regions, very remote regions, islands and places with no roads at all really need this service. We want to be able to increase this kind of trade. It would be good for small businesses to be able to import and export. It would also stimulate our economy. The Bloc proposed this, and it is feasible.

I would like to talk about several other measures, but I will end with some criticism. As I said earlier, we sometimes need to think about the negative effects of certain measures.

Let us talk about the travel tax credit. As I mentioned, I represent a large riding, and I have to travel a few thousand kilometres to get to the House. For someone taking a flight out of the North Shore, the tax credit would cover about one trip a year, and perhaps only one way. The $1,200 will not make it into anyone's pocket right away. For individuals struggling to pay for airfare, waiting until the end of the year to receive the tax credit will not help them. The tax credit will go to people who already have money, people who can afford to put that amount on their credit cards and pay the interest afterwards, which is terrible. This measure will be ineffective.

Then there is the issue of commuter workers. People come work in my riding and then leave again. They do not necessarily want to live there because it is hard. They do not spend any money and do not contribute to the economy of the North Shore, but they are the ones who will likely benefit from this tax credit. I am glad they can work. I want everyone to be able to earn a living. At the same time, we have to think about not adopting measures that will ultimately harm the regions. This is incredibly important to me. We have to look at all the policies and these measures in relation to remote regions such as the North Shore.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referred, if not directly then indirectly, to the importance of small businesses and how it is important that the government provide financial support. We have done that in many ways, whether through loans, wage subsidies or rent supports. It is important to recognize that the Bloc party supported Bill C-2, which supported small businesses.

Now we have Bill C-8 before the House. It provides different types of support, at least in part, through rapid tests for small businesses, which many of them will require, but also for ventilation in schools.

I would like to get a sense of the Bloc party's position with respect to Bill C-8. Does the member support this legislation?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I will support it a bit because I cannot support it more than that, if that makes sense. In other words, there is room for improvement. Of course, we supported Bill C‑2. We want help to be provided, but that help has to be flexible and based on needs. We have had to pass some bills hastily, even urgently, because businesses were closing. Many filed for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. That was a very difficult time.

In the meantime, this is still going. We have been studying it for two years. What we are saying now is that this could have been part of it. One does not preclude the other. We could have thought of another smaller emergency account for businesses, something the Bloc proposed last spring. This already existed and we could always enhance it. Of course, there is help, but we also have to listen to the little guy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague from Manicouagan that I support her vision for land occupancy. The House should more clearly define its position on this issue and act accordingly. Having people settle all over Quebec and Canada is fundamental.

She also mentioned that she had many ideas about how to help SMEs. I would love for her to present them.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier we spoke about the Canada emergency business account. With regard to help for businesses, I did mention the issue of accountants and tax experts, which could be a solution and would keep them working as well. Maybe we should help businesses with that.

There is also the whole issue of paperwork, which can always be reduced. We are in an emergency, and we need to focus on the time factor, so that people can get money quickly.

I am almost tempted to talk about employment insurance and what is happening with fraud. People need EI benefits right now. There will be time to look into the fraud cases later. I would say that the same thing applies here: Let us give people the money and have them fill out the paperwork afterwards, to give them more time. When it is a matter of saving the ship from going down, it is impossible to do everything at once.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to speak about employment insurance, so I must give her the opportunity to go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will talk about employment insurance, after all, it is mentioned in the economic update. In fact I hope to see a reform. I thank my colleague because I love talking about this issue.

Back home, employment insurance is not just assistance, it is practically a development tool. That is a serious thing to say, but it is what it is. Some people in my riding have not had access to EI since November.

I am thinking about one fishing industry in the Lower North Shore, about some tiny villages of just 100 or 150 people, about the Newfoundlanders who came to fish. What happened? Every single employee of the plant was denied EI because of alleged fraud. It is funny. In my region, 30 or 40 people is an entire town. The entire plant apparently committed fraud and the workers got nothing.

We are asking that these people get their money now, because they need to eat and put a roof over their heads. The government can then conduct its investigation, and if some individuals committed fraud then they can pay the money back. The way things are done now is causing people to leave the regions, as is happening in my colleague's region, and that is not what we want in terms of land use, as we have mentioned.

This would be easy to do. The government did it with CERB, so it can do it with EI.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the pandemic persists, more individuals are experiencing precarious housing situations, and first-time homelessness is rapidly on the rise.

Housing is a human right that has been neglected by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, and although the current government has made investments in housing, including with the rapid housing initiative, it is a drop in the bucket. Years of underfunding have resulted in a massive shortage of housing with rents geared to income, and the normalization of violating people's right to housing. This is resulting sometimes in individuals dying on the street. This is becoming a new normal. It is a callous turning of a blind eye to human suffering, sometimes resulting in death.

Poverty is a violent human rights violation, and failing to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head is, in fact, a political choice. I share this because the current government has made it a practice to bail out and fund its corporate buddies. It gave $50 million to Mastercard, while millions were struggling to pay their credit card bills at the end of the month; $12 million to Loblaws to install new fridges, a company that eliminated the $2 per hour pandemic pay bonus for its workers, despite earning windfall profits; $14 billion in tax giveaways in its 2018 economic update alone, including writeoffs for private debts and limousines; and $18 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, while we are living through a global climate crisis.

CEOs and their C-suite executives rewarded themselves with millions in dividends when their companies received hundreds of millions from the Canada emergency wage subsidy that was meant to protect jobs, and Air Canada received hundreds of millions from the CEWS, and a bailout of $5.9 billion, but paid out millions of dollars in executive bonuses while cutting thousands of jobs.

However, I have to beg for crumbs for my riding. It is the third-poorest riding in the country, where lives are continuously and consistently lost to poverty. People are freezing to death in the cold because they have no place to sleep. Bus shacks are filled with people seeking refuge from the cold. There are fires in rooming houses and apartments because of overcrowded conditions, and families are cramped in small living quarters because the cost of renting a place to live is out of reach. In fact, the rate of unsuitable housing, meaning not enough bedrooms according to family size, is 7% in Winnipeg. This is approximately 21,500 households, and this crisis continues to grow.

In the last four years, only 11 rent-geared-to-income housing units have been filled in Manitoba, and while new funding has been announced to build some new units with rents geared to income, it still fails to meet the housing needs in Winnipeg Centre as a result of decades of underfunding. In fact, the End Homelessness Winnipeg 2021 Interim Street Census Community Report counted 1,127 people experiencing homelessness in a 24-hour period. It was -45°C in Winnipeg last week.

This is unacceptable. This is a political choice, and the choice not to invest adequately is costing precious lives. At the same time, tenants in my riding are feeling the squeeze as a result of this underinvestment and neglect.

In fact, approximately 50% of Winnipeg renters are in housing that falls short of at least one standard of affordability, adequacy and suitability. In addition, 40% of Winnipeg renters are living in unaffordable housing, meaning they are spending 30% or more of their income on shelter costs.

I have visited homes in my riding with holes in the walls into the main hallways, and it is not unusual for our constituency office to receive calls about heat not working, broken windows or pest infestations. In Winnipeg, the rate of inadequate housing, meaning housing that is in major need of repairs, is 7.6%, with 23,440 households being impacted. This is abhorrent, and this is completely unacceptable.

No one in a country as rich as Canada should have to live like this, and again I will share that this is a political choice. It does not have to be this way. It is a choice. We could make, for example, the political choice to stop investing in corporate bailouts and handouts and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. That would be a choice.

Housing is a human right, and this right is violated daily in this country. In Winnipeg, 35,760 households are in core housing need, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Winnipeg has the highest number of indigenous households in core housing need. The government has left indigenous people homeless on their own lands, which they have graciously shared with others. This is a tragic outcome of colonization that has resulted from the often violent dispossession of land, and the vacancy rates tell an important story.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported in its most recent rental market report that vacancy rates in Winnipeg are highest for the most expensive rental housing units and lowest for the most affordable ones. While the vacancy rate is 13.8% for units with a monthly rent of $2,000 or more, it plummets to 4% for units with rents of $1,000 to $1,400 and to just 2.9% for units with monthly rents of $625 or less. What that tells us is that there is a critical shortage of genuinely affordable housing with rents geared to income.

Most of the new housing being built is out of reach for the majority of people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre. Speaking of things that are out of reach, skyrocketing housing prices are putting the dream of home ownership even further out of reach for many of my constituents. In fact, under the current government, the benchmark price for a home in Canada has jumped $300,000, while in Winnipeg prices for single homes in the city increased by 14.7% at the end of 2021 and 16.1% for condos.

This is a crisis, and we need to address this.

I know that I have painted a very bleak picture here, because the reality is, right now for so many across the country, things are becoming bleaker and bleaker, especially in regard to upholding the right to housing. However, as I indicated, we have a choice, and I am urging the government to make a different choice and ensure that all individuals' right to housing is respected and upheld.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share something in common that is not a good thing, and she made reference to it in her speech, and that is the bus shelters. Whether it is on Portage Avenue in her riding or on Selkirk Avenue in my riding, we see bus shelters being used as homes. One cannot help but be fearful and sympathetic when they see those visuals, especially when the weather is this cold.

I can appreciate the member is in opposition and is critiquing the government, but would she not agree that the best way to deal with that kind of homelessness is to have different levels of government all at the table, and even factor in some of those wonderful non-profit organizations that are doing a lot of the ground work? It is time that we really all came together to deal with this very serious problem.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with working with all levels of government, and as a practice, I even work across party lines to fight for my riding of Winnipeg Centre and to fight for human rights. However, here is the thing. This behaviour of incremental justice by the Liberal government has resulted in people literally freezing to death on the streets of Winnipeg Centre in bus shelters. They do not have three years to wait for the government to cough up the funds they need.

As I said, it is a political choice. I am asking the government to divest in its corporate bailouts, invest in saving lives and ensure that Winnipeg Centre gets the resources it needs to build the housing it needs.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is a fellow member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know these issues are very important to us both.

We agree on two things. First, the rich must pay their fair share. The Liberals had announced measures to crack down on tax havens, so it is deeply disappointing to see next to nothing about that in Bill C‑8, because that would be one way to make the wealthy pay. The second thing we agree on is that the Liberal government lacks vision for social housing. Either there is not enough funding or the money is not being put to good use.

What we may disagree on is the need for Ottawa to transfer the money as soon as possible. This falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, the provinces, the territories and municipalities are in the best position to tackle 30 years of underfunded social housing. They know the needs on the ground. They know which women are fleeing intimate partner violence and need shelter. They know how many units are needed. They know which senior women are struggling right now and need social and community housing.

I would like my colleague to comment on the importance of giving the provinces, Quebec and the territories the power to invest in social and community housing where they see the real need.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to be on the status of women committee with my hon. colleague from Shefford. It has been a pleasure to get to know her.

I certainly agree that the provinces play a part. However, the federal government has a responsibility to provide the financial resources to places in need, whether it be in Quebec or Manitoba. That has not happened. In Winnipeg Centre, we had an investment in housing, and although it is greatly appreciated, it is not even a drop in the bucket.

We need more resources. We need greater investments in affordable, accessible housing, with rent geared to income. We cannot wait; lives are on the line.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre and I share a lot in common, particularly with my district in Edmonton Griesbach, one of the hardest hit communities of poverty. My colleagues and I know the importance of ending poverty, and the Liberal legislation does not go nearly far enough in fixing the poverty issues.

Would the member agree that ensuring a guaranteed livable basic income is truly the appropriate response to ending poverty in Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-223, to implement a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. There has been a lot of research on it in Canada, Manitoba being the place for research in the MINCOME study. We know that when we invest in people, it is good for the economy, it is good for people and it saves lives.

There has been cross-partisan support for it. It is a practice that has been implemented in other places in the world, with guaranteed livable basic income programs. This would be a game-changer. This would save lives. It is time to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had a nice chat earlier about translation. In English, we call you the Speaker, but in French, maybe we should call you “haut parleur”, because you do make quite a good loudspeaker. We know that you are the Speaker and that you are doing a great job. You can tell your constituents that we are very proud to have you as Speaker of the House of Commons presiding over this debate.

It is my turn to speak to Bill C‑8, which would implement certain provisions of the 2021 economic and fiscal update.

I took the time to read through the 2021 economic and fiscal update that was presented by the Minister of Finance. This week, during question period, I had the opportunity to put several questions to both the minister and the Prime Minister, who was participating virtually. I was struck by their answers and by the scant compassion they showed for the mothers and fathers affected by inflation. When I asked the minister when the government would start trying to curb inflation and how it would react to Canadians getting poorer, she proudly rose and announced that inflation in Canada was 4.8%, while in other countries it was 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% or 8%.

It is true that inflation might be a bit lower in Canada. However, both single- and two-parent families are being forced to make tough choices at the grocery store because budgets are tight, and the problem is that inflation may be 4.8%, but grocery bills are going up by 6%. That 6% increase represents the increase in prices across the board, but on specific products, such as beef or chicken, that increase can be 10%, 15% or even 20%.

People now have to start making choices. They have to start leaving things out of the basket to feed the family, instead of taking the nutritious and good food they were used to getting. Why? Because when they get to the cash register, no one wants to be in a situation where they have to leave something behind for fear of being short on money. No mother or father wants to go through that. It is inhumane. Unfortunately, that is what is happening. I know this because I have received testimonials. I have actually received a lot of them since I asked the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister these questions. When we talk about it, we learn things.

People call us and talk to us. I have learned quite a few things, including that food banks have seen a rise in the number of people who come looking for food. I was a bit surprised because the unemployment rate in Quebec is relatively low. I asked whether these were people who did not have a job or who were unable to get employment insurance because of fraud on their file, given that the government has been unable to resolve their situation since November. I was told no, these are workers, families who do not have enough money to put enough food on the table for the week. We are talking about working people who have a job but are no longer able to make ends meet. They unfortunately have to make these kinds of choices because the cost of gas, housing, and absolutely everything is going up. We are seeing prices skyrocketing, and, sadly, the 4.8% inflation rate is just a fraction of the rise in costs.

There are all kinds of things that Statistics Canada does not take into account, such as vehicle prices. Plenty of things are not taken into account in calculating inflation, so inflation is in fact much higher.

I would like the government to put forward some solutions. Unfortunately, there are none to be found in the economic and fiscal update.

I would like to quote from an article published on January 28, so not that long ago. Nathalie Elgrably wrote:

As if the horrors of the pandemic were not enough, the spectre of inflation is now rearing its ugly head. After 30 years of stability, we are all worrying about it again. If this trend keeps up, inflation is likely to become our number one economic and social problem in short order.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. The government asked people to make sacrifices. People stayed home. Now an inflation problem has been thrown into the mix thanks to the government's excessive spending. The government injected too much money into the economy, and now prices are rising across the board.

Here are some figures from the economic and fiscal update forecast. From the start of the pandemic, the government has spent $176 billion on expenditures that are not related to COVID-19. It is using the excuse of COVID-19 for spending unrelated to the pandemic.

Canadians agree that we must invest to help businesses and people and to meet needs. When the government decides to close something, it is normal for the government to be there to help the closed businesses. However, $176 billion was spent on items unrelated to COVID-19. That is the main driver of this inflation and what makes it rise.

Let us go back to Ms. Elgrably's article, because I think she is right. She confirms precisely what I believe.

To explain this impoverishment, Ottawa is blaming supply chain disruptions, or any random misalignment of the stars.

The “explanations” given by Ottawa are nonsense! It is a dog-and-pony show to make us forget that the [Prime Minister's] staggering spending, which was basically financed by the Bank of Canada, caused the inflation.

I am not the one saying so. Other people are also speaking out. It is not just the nasty Conservatives complaining about this overspending. Economists and banks are talking about it. Let me quote some of them.

BMO chief economist Douglas Porter said those two issues, coupled with reports of labour shortages suggest inflation rates may yet rise higher despite widespread hope that they had hit their peak.

“They definitely may still rise in the coming months....

I'm not at all relieved or relaxed on the inflation outlook. I am quite concerned that we could have more of an inflation issue than I think is commonly believed among economists.”

Unfortunately, the economic and fiscal update gives no indication of the government's plan. We have no idea what the government intends to do to finally stop the collective impoverishment of Canadian families. What are we supposed to tell families who have to pay an extra $300 or $400 a month in rent, because their houses cost more? What are we going to say to those families? What are we supposed to say to parents who have to decide what to leave on the grocery store shelves because they cannot afford it? Inflation is a serious problem.

We are not going to fix the problem for fathers and mothers by telling ourselves that we are doing better than other countries. What I want to know is how much inflation is too much for the government. It is now at 4.8%. Is 5% too much, or 6% or 7%?

In its own economic and fiscal update, the government even targeted 2% inflation. We are at 4.8%, and that is enough.