Debates of Oct. 5th, 2022

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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.