Debates of Dec. 7th, 2022

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

I thank the member for his comments. There are three other booths near the lobbies, and there is someone in one of them.

The hon. member for Montcalm wishes to add something.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The sound is good when there are people in the booths here in the House. The booths in the House are properly equipped for sound.

Every time we have an interpreter working remotely outside the House, the sound is bad, and it can damage our hearing. I demand, as a member of House, that my hearing not be jeopardized.

Let us fix the problem once and for all.

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

I again thank the member. We will try to resolve this problem. We can do another sound check this evening to ensure that everything is working properly.

I am not going to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to back up and start again, but he could perhaps pick up from the last sentence.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I would be more than happy to start fresh. However, I will continue on with something I know Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned with, and in particular so are my Bloc friends. My friends in the Bloc like the issue of health care, and maybe this is a good way for me to provide some thoughts in regard to it, because I am very passionate about health care.

I really believe it is, for me personally over the last 30 years as a parliamentarian, probably the number one concern, because I recognize the true value of having national health care. Whether someone lives in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax, any other municipality in between or up north, I would like to think there is a certain level of quality public health care no matter where.

Mobility within Canada is critically important. I say that because I made reference to the fact that the national government gives record amounts of money toward health care. I was a provincial politician for 20 years, and throughout those years, it seems, every year provinces asked for more money in health care. There is an expectation that the national government should do more than be an ATM.

In fact I can recall the days when there was a huge tax point transfer. Provinces took a tax point transfer instead of a cash transfer, and I was not a big fan of that. I do not think we should do that, or anything of that nature, into the future. I believe Canadians want a quality health care system. I am very proud of our government, whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health in particular, and their approach in dealing with health care here in Canada.

As a government we continue to support health care. We want to work with all the different stakeholders, and I look forward to that ongoing debate on health care, in terms of this legislation. This is good, sound and solid legislation that would be there to support Canadians. I wish all members would vote in favour of it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois asked that Bill C-32 include a commitment from the government to increase health transfers. Since the third wave of COVID-19, every expert has said that what Quebec and the provinces need is predictability to be able to improve their systems. Short-term and one-time investments are not going to solve the problem.

I would like to ask my colleague what the government is waiting for to meet the needs of Quebec and the provinces, patients and staff. If we want to rebuild our healthcare systems, we need respectable health transfers. We asked for 35%. The provinces spend $200 billion a year on health, while the federal government kicks in $42 billion. Increasing transfers by 10% will not solve the problem.

If health is important to my colleague, does he agree with the unanimous demand made by Quebec and the provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if there were a province that did not agree to ask for more money.

When I was the health care critic for the Province of Manitoba, I suggested that the greatest threat to health care at that time was not necessarily an issue of financing as much as how important it was to manage the changes necessary in order to be able to afford the type of health care expectations Canadians have. I believe there is a role, through the Canada Health Act, for Ottawa to say there is an expectation that, whether someone lives in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax or anywhere in between, if they need a hip replacement, it should be available for them in a reasonable time frame.

I do not believe for a moment that the federal government should just hand out a pile of cash. I believe the federal government has a role, through the Canada Health Act, to meet the expectations Canadians have that it ensure a quality health care service coast to coast to coast. Some provinces will do better than others, but overall we need to ensure this social program is there for all of us.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have been noticing that the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to be on the same side when it comes to not taxing the major big box stores.

I see that they have made a small incremental tax in the Canada recovery dividend, but it does not do enough.

I wonder if the member can respond to whether the Canada recovery dividend needs to be extended to big box stores that have been showing record profits.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the legislation that accompanied the very first budget, from what I understand, we increased the tax bracket for Canada's wealthiest 1%.

From the very beginning to the more recent federal budget where we put in a special tax, which is due to the recovery, on banks and insurance companies, the Government of Canada wants to ensure that everyone believes, knows or understands that we all have to pay our fair share.

Over the last number of years, we have put a great deal of emphasis on Canada's middle class. The healthier our middle class is, the healthier our economy will be, and we are there to support the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that we are debating the fall economic statement. I always notice, and I mean this in the nicest way, that the Liberal speakers know very little about the economy when we are debating economic matters like the economic statement.

I listened to the member across the way, with intent, because he did bring up some historical context here about inflation. I wonder if he knows that the rate of inflation and how it is measured in Canada is historically lower than it is in the United States because of the way we measure owners' equivalent rent.

Most Canadians are asking, “How come it is always lower in Canada than it is in the United States?"

Since he referenced some history about one time when it was actually higher in Canada, according to his interpretation, I will ask him this. Did that measurement change during those years, or did that measurement change to manipulate the inflation rate that we are showing right now?

It is an open question. I actually do not know the answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the stats I got were from the U.S.A., which indicated 2014-15, the last two years of Stephen Harper. The actual inflation rate in the United States was lower than in Canada. The member is right. Often, the Canadian rate is lower, as it has been here for the last number of years and continues to be, even today when the Conservatives voice their concerns about the inflation rate.

It does not mean that we should not be sensitive to those grocery costs and other expenses at the local level. We need to do more. That is why we brought forward the legislation to support Canadians, even during this difficult time. I encourage all members to recognize that Canada is doing reasonably well on a worldwide basis.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today during the third reading debate to support Bill C-32. I am one of the final speakers on this important legislation that would implement some of the key measures from our government’s fall economic statement and bring needed help to Canadians who need it the most, including in my riding of Scarborough Centre.

I have spoken several times in the House about inflation and the impact it is having on families in my riding. It seems like everything is more expensive. For families in Scarborough, which is one of those communities where people are working hard to join the middle class, it is not like it was easy for many families to make ends meet already.

The lack of affordable and suitable housing is a long-standing issue. Rising interest rates are not helping. Add in the higher cost of groceries and seemingly everything else, and it leaves many families having to make very difficult choices every month. With housing, transportation, groceries, school outings and clothes for children, paycheques never seem to go far enough. For too many families, it is harder than ever to get ahead.

In the spring, we were all focused on the high price of gas. It is still not cheap, but it is down substantially from its peak of over two dollars per litre. Groceries and other necessities remain more expensive than usual, and this trend is forecast to continue into the coming year.

While my friends across the way may say otherwise, inflation is not a made-in-Canada phenomenon. Groceries are not more expensive because our government stepped up during the pandemic to stop people from losing their homes and businesses from declaring bankruptcy.

In fact, our pandemic supports for Canadians, which I recall all members in the House working on together to deliver them to Canadians expeditiously, saw Canada emerge stronger from the pandemic. We were there for Canadians and we always will be.

Inflation is a global phenomenon driven by the zero-COVID policy in China, ongoing supply chain disruptions, climate change impacting the harvest of vital crops and the war in Ukraine. Canada is not immune to these global pressures.

We have done better than many of our peers. According to a report last month from CTV, Canada had the third-lowest inflation rate in the G7 at 6.9%, which is higher than only France and Japan, and faring much better than the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and even the United States.

That said, the challenges being faced by many Canadians are very real, and Canadians expect their government to be there to help those who need it the most. You and I do not need help, Mr. Speaker. We can tighten our belts and weather the storm until it passes.

However, those families already on the edge, the seniors on a fixed income and the single mother trying to support her kids on a minimum-wage job are the people who need targeted assistance. It is those Canadians we are seeking to help with Bill C-32.

I would like to focus on a few of the ways we are already helping constituents in my riding who need help the most.

By doubling the GST tax credit for six months, we are directly helping lower-income seniors and families. Everyone below a certain income threshold is eligible for the GST tax credit, and this increased rebate is already putting money back into the pockets of Canadians who need help the most.

A single person with no dependent children can receive up to $234, and a couple with no children can receive up to $306. This goes all the way up to $628 for a couple with four children.

We are also topping up the Canada housing benefit with a $500, one-time payment. Everyone, from young people living on their own for the first time to families and seniors on a fixed income, is eligible based on their income and how much of their income they pay toward rent.

In short, whether it is a family with a net income under $35,000 or it is a single person earning under $20,000 and paying 30% or more of their income on rent, then they can qualify for this payment, but they need to apply for it. Applications open December 12, and if someone is eligible, I strongly encourage them to go online to apply.

We have also launched the Canada dental benefit for low-income families with children under the age of 12. It can provide up to $1,300 over two years to help with dental costs for eligible families. We expect this program to expand to lower-income seniors next year. I know it will make a difference for many seniors on a fixed income.

If people take care of their teeth, their teeth will take care of them. This program means that lower-income families without employer coverage do not need to neglect their oral health needs. We are also working toward a national dental care plan for all Canadians.

These are all targeted programs that are putting more money back into the pockets of lower-income families and seniors. We are building on these initiatives with Bill C-32.

To address housing affordability, we are taking a number of steps, including an anti-flipping rule to discourage people from rapidly flipping homes for profit in a short time, which is driving up housing prices. Houses should be a home, not a business. We would make it easier to save for a down payment with the new tax-free first home savings account.

We would change the rules around the tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused. Also, we would double the first-time homebuyer's tax credit amount from $5,000 to $10,000.

I also have a lot of multi-generational households in my riding, and the multi-generational home renovation tax credit would help families make their homes more suitable to their needs.

I am particularly excited about the elimination of interest on federal Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans, combined with no requirement for repayment at all until a graduate is making at least $40,000 per year. This would be a significant benefit for our young Canadians.

I meet with student groups every year and with individual students all the time in my community. They have long told me about the burden of graduating with major student debt that weighs them down for years. In real dollars, tuition and other expenses are so much more than when we were in school. Even working full time, it can be hard to keep up.

The elimination of federal student loan interest has been welcomed by many stakeholders. For example, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which I met with last week, said:

Big news for students across Canada!

Starting on April 1, 2023, the Government of Canada will remove the interest on Canada Student Loans. This investment is welcomed by past, current, and future student loan borrowers.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada said:

We're pleased to see help to Canada's most vulnerable in today's economic update, including eliminating student loan interest payments for thousands of our members and increased funding for the services our members deliver to Canadians every day.

By eliminating interest and delaying repayments, we would make it easier for young graduates just entering the workforce to begin a family, to begin saving and to enter the housing market. Without the burden of crushing debt payments and compounding interest, they could more easily realize their career goals and contribute to society, which would enrich us all. This measure would save the average graduate more than $400 every year, and that would be a real benefit for young families saving for their first homes.

I could go on, but the sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner more help will begin to flow to Canadians who need help the most. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Canadians, and let us pass this bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified $14.2 billion in unannounced spending in the fall economic statement.

In a complete lack of transparency, the finance minister has refused to say how that money would be spent. Perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre could enlighten us on how $14.2 billion of taxpayers' dollars is going to be spent?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-32 and our fall economic statement, we are trying to provide targeted support to Canadians who need it the most, by doubling the GST tax credit, by eliminating the student debt loan and by providing a one-time $500 top-up allowance for renters who cannot afford it.

I talk to constituents in my riding every day, and they bring up these issues. Affordability is becoming a concern for many. These are measures, like the measures the members on the opposite side voted against, such as providing dental support for families with kids under the age of 12. We are lucky to have insurance, but there are many families in my community who have no insurance to take their kids to the dentist.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding likely has one of the fastest-aging populations in the country.

We just learned that groceries are going to cost even more next year and that the Bank of Canada increased its key interest rate for the seventh time. Given these circumstances, it seems to me that the economic update would have been the right time for the government to finally announce that it is increasing the old age security pension for all seniors.

Regardless of whether a person is 65 or 77, I think that it would have been good news for them to find out that seniors would be getting an increase in their OAS starting at age 65. One in four people in the Lower St. Lawrence region is 65 or older.

My question is simple. Why did the government not use the economic update as an opportunity to stop creating two classes of seniors and provide financial support to all of them, regardless of age?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concern for seniors.

As I mentioned in my remarks, it is important that we support seniors on fixed incomes through the inflationary period. Lower-income seniors are benefiting from the doubling of the GST tax credit and from the Canada housing benefit one-time special payment.

We lowered the retirement age from 67 to 65. The Conservatives had changed it, and we brought it back down. As well, we introduced the age well at home initiative to help our seniors continue to live safely and independently in their homes. We also increased the old age security for seniors above the age of 75. We will continue to make sure we are there for our seniors.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member pointed out is that the Liberals have created a special and extra benefit for seniors over 75. While I would not at all dispute that seniors over 75 face extra costs in terms of their lives, somehow it seems to imply that those between 65 and 75 are okay, when we all know they are suffering from those same effects of inflation and those same inabilities to make ends meet when it comes to housing and associated medical costs.

I wonder if the hon. member would support the idea that the increase that went to those over 75 should have gone to all seniors.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, definitely seniors need more help, and I will continue advocating to make sure we are there for seniors.

We have been there for our seniors. The increase we brought to the guaranteed income supplement was to help seniors keep up with inflation. They will benefit from the doubling of the GST tax credit. Low-income seniors will also benefit from the $500 one-time top-up allowance for housing.

We will continue raising our voices to do more for our seniors.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prior to commencing my speech, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to give a brief shout-out to a business that is a Kamloops beacon and a beautiful, thriving small business in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is Riversong Guitars, which recently won a prestigious award. I want to read from a story from the CBC. Here is a quote:

Riversong's P2P River Pacific was announced on Sunday as the acoustic category winner in the prestigious Musical Merchandise Review...Dealers' Choice Awards. In the 30-year history of the international awards, Riversong owner and P2P guitar inventor Mike Miltimore said this is the first time a Canadian company has won acoustic guitar of the year.

That is quite an accomplishment for a relatively small company, and especially a Canadian company. I am equally proud that the people come from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to thank Mr. Miltimore and his staff for all they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and for the industry.

We do not get to share enough of these stories in the House of Commons. While that is somewhat positive, sometimes we have to dwell on, or not dwell on but point out the negative. Here we are, speaking to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement.

This is a confidence matter. We are talking about over $1 billion of spending. When I asked myself about supporting a confidence measure, as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, I asked myself, “Do I have trust in the government?”

With all due respect, the conclusion I have come to, based especially on what I have seen in the last couple of months, is a resounding no. I ask myself what it means to have confidence in the government, such that a parliamentarian can support a piece of confidence legislation like the fall economic statement.

Confidence is predicated on trust. Why do I not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward? Why do my constituents generally not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward, based on their communications to me? Last, why do a number of Canadians not trust what the government is doing, communicating and saying?

First, and likely most notably, is when it comes to finances. Here we are, debating a bill based on finances. Let us turn back the clock a bit and remember that this was the Prime Minister who promised modest deficits of $10 billion. He also promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. What we saw were much larger deficits than the promised $10 billion. We also saw no intention to balance that same budget.

The Prime Minister said the budget would balance itself. It has not. The Prime Minister has doubled all debt and has added more debt to Canada's financial rolls than all other prime ministers combined. I have young children, which is obviously no secret, and I wonder about the care for future generations. Who will pay for this?

I recently read a statistic, and I am going to paraphrase it here. My understanding is that we are paying so much just in interest on the debt that we could nearly fund our whole health care system. The Liberals will extol how much money they put into health care. We Conservatives will say that the money is not being spent appropriately or efficiently and is not getting things done. It is one thing to spend money, generally, but Conservatives believe in spending money prudently. There is a very key distinction.

Who will fundamentally pay for this? I am wondering. The government pays the debt off; there is no doubt about it, but we, the people, must pay the government, and that has to happen in one of two ways. It happens through taxation, or it happens through borrowing.

I will often hear in question period when Conservatives, seemingly the only opposition party in the House at times, or so it feels, will point out the spending or the difficulties, and the Liberals will say in response that they have done this and they have lowered that, or, as I just heard, they have doubled the GST credit.

I am going to give a personal anecdote. Not long ago, I looked at the after-tax pay on a T4 slip of somebody I know well. When I was working in federal corrections, I made a good salary, and this person makes tens of thousands of dollars more than I did, yet the individual's take-home pay is just $200, $300, $400 a month more than what I took home 20 years ago, working for the federal government. That is not because of deductions that those employees are choosing. These are incremental things at the source. There are—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's pensions.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay, let us talk about pensions.

I will ask for unanimous consent for my friend across the floor to take 30 seconds to talk about it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Sure. Yes.

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

There is a request for unanimous consent to allow the member for St. Catharines to speak, but I hear a number of members saying no.