Thank you for the question.
I'm very struck by the degree of inconsistency in the criticisms in regard to carbon taxes being inflationary and yet things like giving $500 per household not being inflationary. It boggles the mind. The IMF literally said yesterday to the U.K.—which provided a tax cut package that was extremely large, in recent memory, and was not targeted, giving those at the top far more money than those at the bottom—that it was not only inflationary but it would accelerate existing income inequalities. There you have it.
I'm not as good an economist as the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, and I cede my criticisms of broad-based tax cuts to the assessment by the International Monetary Fund that it would be like pouring gasoline on an inflationary fire to have broad-based tax cuts—whether you're cutting the carbon tax, whether you're cutting gas taxes at the pump, or whether you're just throwing money at people, like “Moe bucks” circulating through the system.
Yet, I can see how, when government coffers are inflated because of inflation itself, the temptation would be very strong to see jurisdictions like Ontario and Alberta, which flipped over from deficit to surplus within a matter of weeks, cut taxes broadly and put money in your pocket to deal with this. We need to target the resources.
To your point, Mr. Blaikie, the idea that you have been able to work with the Liberals to increase the GST credit and to increase the housing benefit at least one time—to target these measures—is something that economists around the world are saying is the smartest thing to do if you're going to provide any help at all, and you really should when it means that more people are going to go hungry.