Debates of Oct. 5th, 2022

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

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, Liberal, 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, Liberal, 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.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I just want to give a quick shout-out. I do not often spend holidays away from my family, but I would like to thank the Ottawa Jewish community for the warm welcome and the meaningful prayer and introspective services that I took part in today.

What happens when young people do everything in this country that they were asked to do? What happens when they do everything they are told? What happens when a 35-year-old who did everything they were supposed to do, who earned a degree, got a job and worked hard, lives in mom and dad's basement or in a 400-square-foot apartment because the price of housing has doubled since the Prime Minister came into office?

Young people have done everything they were asked to do, and they end up trying to keep their heads above water in a housing bubble that is the second largest in the world. As for families lucky enough to own a home, they were paying 32% of their income to maintain that home when the Prime Minister took office. Now, those families have to pay 50% of their income to be able to keep it. There are higher costs, higher interest rates and less money for exactly the same thing in this country.

Canadians have done everything they were asked to do. The government told Canadians not to worry. The government told people that interest rates would not rise for a long time. It gave Canadians the confidence to take out those loans. There would not be anything to worry about. That is what it said.

We are seeing interest rates, the ones the government told us would stay low, go up. We have the highest interest rates in the G7, with rises of 3%.

It is worth repeating: Canadians did everything they were asked to do. The percentage of Canadians who own their home or who are about to own a home is at its lowest level in 30 years.

No government has ever spent more on housing than this Liberal one; the government will tell us that, yet it is a failure by every metric. Measuring success by how much the Liberals have spent and not by how many houses were built in Canada is where we are, yet, with all of those dollars and all of those talking points, we have still seen the doubling of housing prices in this country since the Prime Minister took office. That is a fact.

Knowing all this and presenting the House with Bill C-31 as a solution makes it seem as though the government weighed the political benefit of a proposal rather than the economic one. In fact, it entirely forgot about the economics of this one.

The bill is the latest problem child of an NDP-Liberal marriage that shines at raising Canadians' taxes and the prices they pay on everyday goods. It fails at producing an actual outcome to get people into the housing market. It does not allow them to keep their home or the certainty at the end of the month of being able to keep the lights on in that home.

A flashy headline and an expensive tab for taxpayers is what got us into this mess, and surely members in the House know it is the exact opposite of what we need to get out of the mess. Maybe they do not know.

The problem is that it is not just housing any more. It is the cost of everything. It is the cost of gas. It is the cost of groceries. It is the cost of home heating. They have cobbled together a piece of legislation that will only drive up inflation and of which we will see every single dollar evaporate with the rising cost of that gas, of those groceries and of that home heating.

It demonstrates the government's out-of-touch planning for working families, for small businesses, for seniors and for young people who have become victims of its incompetence.

Economists agree. I am not sure what the conversation is in the House during the debate, but the Bank of Montreal's senior economist recently tweeted, “I think we all know that sending out money as an 'inflation-support' measure is inherently...inflationary.” Those are his words.

Scotiabank was clear. Its expert said, “Any belief that [the government's proposal] will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

The house that no one can afford is on fire, and the minister who introduced this legislation is painting the basement where the 35-year-old lives. Bill C-31 is a political attempt to stay in power, not to help Canadians, and that is a shame.

There is an obvious fact that many members opposite may not see as obvious at all. It is about the other back-of-the-napkin math that is in this cobbled-together piece of legislation. In the entire 80-page Liberal platform from just last year, not one of the pages mentioned developing a dental care program like the one the government is proposing today, so we have to ask what reasoning members opposite have for introducing this legislation at this very moment.

Has there been some sort of epiphany among the Liberal caucus? Have they suddenly been convinced that this is the silver bullet for solving the affordability crisis, which they now admit is here? After seven years of Liberal government and three elections, is now the time for a proposal we have never heard of before?

Is there another factor at play? Frankly, I think there is. Perhaps it is the fact that the government now relies on votes from the NDP to ensure its very existence. The NDP curiously made dental care a centrepiece of its election platform just a short year ago. If this is the case, then do the Liberals believe that this is necessary? Is it the right thing to do, or is it a piece of legislation where $5.3 billion would be prolonging the messy divorce we all know is coming?

We should not only ask how a government has failed to provide the details of this legislation, but we should ask why we would trust a government to create a new program, when it cannot deliver the programs it already has?

The government cannot pay its own public servants. It cannot get clean drinking water onto reserves. It cannot get Canadians passports without giving them an urban camping experience they did not ask for. It cannot ensure Canadian travellers get an app to travel across a border. It cannot assure Canadians that, when they go to the airport, they are actually going to leave on an airplane, and we are supposed to believe that it is going to deliver an efficient, functional, national dental care plan to millions of uninsured Canadians, one that we have never heard of before.

For those following this debate and for those who will vote on this, dental care programs for low-income children exist in all provinces and territories, save for Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, in addition to the 70% of Canadians who are already insured and have coverage.

This program is a political one, and it is designed to fail by a government that has failed to deliver very basic services for Canadians. There would be up-front, direct payments of $650 per year to any family they deem eligible, with no questions asked and no strings attached in the legislation. Then, it is up to the CRA to follow up after the fact and verify the money was used correctly. I would like to know how the government thinks the CRA, which will takes years to fix a minor tax issues faced by my constituents, would have the capacity to verify the proper use of a grant by hundreds of thousands of Canadians, given there has been much to be desired in its ability to do just that with programs in the last two years. It is the wrong approach. We have seen it before, and we know how it ends.

Economists have been clear about the impact of direct payments on the cost of living, and I know members opposite understand there is a cost of living crisis. They have just recently admitted it. From the other side of the House, Canadians will remember that the Liberals told us interest rates would stay low. They told us the carbon tax would not go up. They told us that the problem was deflation, not inflation.

We have record inflation. We have a plan to triple the carbon tax, and we have the highest interest rates since the 1990s. It is time to end inflationary taxes and deficits, give Canadians control of their own lives and put more money in their pockets. Reducing taxes, capping government spending and removing red tape are the best ways to end the inflation crisis we have watched the government impose on Canadians through its high-spend, high-tax agenda, not with bigger budgets, higher taxes or more government.

This entire bill is an excuse for policy in hopes of being remembered in the next election, when that rolls around, and it is just one more drop of gasoline on the inflationary fire. Canadians deserve a government that will put people back into the plan, and the Liberals have proven that they are not that government. Conservatives will not forget that. Members on this side of the House will not forget that, and neither will Canadians. Putting people at the centre of decisions starts with voting against this bill, and I hope members understand the consequences of another broken promise, failed delivery and worse economic hardship for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and the Liberals as though she just cracked a 30-year-old mystery. I think it is pretty well known that the NDP, in order to come together with the Liberal Party to bring forward legislation on behalf of Canadians and to form some stability, made this as one of their requests in the process, and the government agreed do that to work with the NDP. That is how parliamentary democracy works when a party does not have a majority.

I am just curious if the member is aware of that, or if the concept of parties working in a minority situation is completely foreign to her. Perhaps the Conservatives are just upset we did not ask them to form that kind of alliance with us. Perhaps she could comment on that.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not going to comment on the condescending speech that I just got from the member opposite about how this place works.

What I will comment on is that this plan, or lack of a plan or lack of a dental plan or lack of any details at all, does one thing and one thing only. It drives the cost of everything up in this country and Canadians are suffering. It ought to be clear by now that the Liberals need to do something about it. They need to lower taxes, kill the carbon tax, kill the paycheque tax and stop spending money that we do not have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know and all Canadians know that the members across the way do not agree with the way we want to put forward policy, but ultimately, at the end of the day, we are trying to create things that are long-lasting. We are trying to create something bigger than ourselves.

Whether we are talking about health care, dental care or pharmacare, which we are going to keep working on, and whether we are talking about long-term, truly affordable housing or child care, which after 28 years of working on it the government finally did, all of these things are long-lasting. Tax credits do not do that. This idea of putting money back into people's pockets through tax credits actually dissolves things, which the Conservatives are trying to do right now. It dissolves the pension plans and dissolves programs like EI, but those are things that workers need. That is what long-term planning is about. We are in a series of crises now because there has not been that long-term planning.

I understand that is a difference we have between our parties. However, I would ask the member across the way if she is here to ultimately create something that will benefit all people equally, which social programs do.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is not the member's position for Canadians to spend more of their money, to have Canadians with more of their money in their own pockets to make the best decisions for themselves, but there is no dental plan here.

Frankly, I would not want the member on my negotiating team, because she did not negotiate a dental plan. There is nothing in the legislation that she is suggesting is in the legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have in Bill C-31 is in fact a path for the dental plan. We are talking about giving families whose incomes are less than $90,000 and do not have access to a dental care plan, with children under 12, that support. Next year, seniors and people with disabilities will also get it. People 18 and under will also get it until we get the full realization of the plan. I am sorry, but the member who says that this is not a dental care plan is simply wrong.

Why are the Conservatives so against people who need supports getting them? Why would they vote against children getting dental services that they desperately need?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the dental care plans for low-income families exist. They exist at 70% across most of the country. If the member opposite read the legislation, she would realize that there are no details in the bill and there is no dental care plan. I expect her to yell behind me, but that still does not change the fact that it is not there.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I see no one rising to speak.

I want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving and a good riding week. Tomorrow I will be attending my son's graduation from Nova Scotia Community College as an LPN, and I want to wish him the best in his future career. I would also like to thank everybody for their interventions this evening.

There being no further members rising to speak, pursuant to order made earlier today, the debate is deemed adjourned and the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:16 p.m.)