Julie Vignola

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this is a sensitive subject. I think I have said it before, and I will say it again. There is no one in the House who has not been affected by cancer one way or another.

When will the government fully implement the recommendations in the committee report and give women a better chance when they are diagnosed, especially with breast cancer? There are also other female cancers that need to be studied thoroughly.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his nuanced and compassionate speech. I also want to thank the entire Standing Committee on Health for this study, which is so very important.

Research into breast cancer must continue. Discoveries are being made quite regularly, including with respect to genetics and DNA. There are some genes that predispose a person to preventable breast cancers.

In certain hereditary cases, would it also be appropriate to include this genetic research to see if a woman is more at risk than others of developing breast cancer?

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. That does not happen very often, but on this I agree. Once again, it shows the government's lack of planning, lack of vision and lack of consistency.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle with what my colleague just said. I know that a 5% tax does not make as much difference to people making $200,000 than to those making $20,000. That is what I made for years, so I understand perfectly well. However, saving $1 per week over two months amounts to $8. That buys four extra litres of milk for two months. It is not enough.

I agree with my colleague. If they are going to do this, it should be on very targeted products and on a permanent basis. This, however, is a sop that, in the end, will not help those who really need it.

There are questions about removing the 5% for two months. Will that also be deducted from the GST rebate at the end of the year?

The government will definitely want to get its money back.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I just spent the last 10 minutes giving a rather exhaustive list of reasons why I could not support this bill. There is, for example, the fact that the measure is not permanent or even long term, at the very least. Another reason is that it will enable the least fortunate to save roughly 25¢ to 50¢ per week, while the wealthy, who can afford to pay for catered meals, will be able save $50. Let us look at children's clothing. Things are simple enough for parents who have a young child, but if they have a teenager or someone under the age of 14 who does not fit into children's clothes, that slips through the cracks.

This bill ends up being too discriminatory and is not targeting the right people. That is why I will be voting against it. That is why I am getting dozens of emails from my constituents telling me that they are not stupid and that saving 10¢ or 25¢ is not going to make them vote Liberal.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Milton for sharing his time with me.

Quebeckers and Canadians have been asking for tax relief for many years, and we recognize that. However, people want permanent relief, not this temporary relief for just two months. If it is not permanent, it should at least be long-term. This measure offers only a two-month break.

The measure proposed by the government and supported by the NDP does not meet public expectations in many respects. To illustrate that, I want to go over the bill briefly, even though all my colleagues have already done so and pointed out certain inconsistencies. I will explain why this measure is aimed at the wrong people. This measure will also be very costly for business owners. In the end, it may be much less beneficial than some people think, not only for the poor, but also for the economy.

The bill provides for a GST exemption or holiday. In Quebec, by the way, the GST amounts to 5%. In other words, there would be a $5 discount on every $100 in taxable purchases. At the grocery store, clients who limit their purchases to staples like bread, milk, eggs, vegetables, fruit, flour, sugar and meat would not have picked up any taxable items. That means they would have saved no money on any of their purchases. As the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie pointed out earlier, when someone buys ready-made sandwiches or roast chicken instead of preparing their food at home, they will save a few pennies, because these items are taxable. However, unless they buy $200 worth of roast chicken or $200 worth of sandwiches, they will save only pennies. Since people rarely buy $200 worth of sandwiches, this person will save just a few cents on their groceries.

The bill includes alcohol, candy and video game cartridges. Physical video games are included, but, I assume, not video games bought online. We have to read between the lines. There is no mention of sports equipment, aside from balls. Books are covered, which is good. However, there are a number of restrictions when it comes to books. There cannot be too many maps or too much advertising. There cannot be this or that. It will be a nightmare for retailers. Parents will find it hard to know which books they can buy without paying the GST.

Then there is the list of toys. In fact, it is more like a description of eligible toys. It is like the government asked all of its employees to go to a department store that sells toys and describe each and every one of them without actually naming them. Those are the descriptions. Retailers and parents will probably be wondering whether a toy is taxed or not. They will wonder if they will save $1 on a $50 toy. Actually, let me recalculate: They will save $2.50 on a $50 toy.

We are also talking about clothing for children under the age of 14. That is something that I mentioned in one of my questions. I am five foot four, which is fairly normal. My husband is five foot nine, even though he claims to be five foot ten. That is fairly normal too. We are very normal, or so we hope. However, our youngest son is 14 years old and wears a size 9 shoe. He wears pants with a 32-inch waist and 32-inch inseam, so he does not fit into the category of children under 14, according to the definition. I will not even talk about the oldest of my three sons. When he was 14, he was nearly six feet tall and wore a size 14 shoe. For him, it is very clear. If he were 14 right now, he would definitely not meet that definition. There may be a bit of an issue with the definitions.

As I was saying earlier, we need to think about the fact that we are talking about essential products. During the holiday season, I can understand wanting to buy a bag of chips, especially since they are often two for $9.50. I would not buy them a few years ago because they were too expensive. A few years ago, I would not buy them because they were too expensive, at two for $5. Now they are two for $9.50. It is nice to be able to afford a little treat when you cannot usually afford it. It is nice when a bag of chips or a bag of candy, whatever it is, becomes the treat of the month. That is great. However, 5% off $9.50 is about 25¢ off the big treat of the month.

Furthermore, when people are struggling financially, they do not think about dining out. As I explained earlier, instead of spending $100 at a restaurant, plus $5 GST, plus $10 Quebec sales tax, plus $15 tip, which is a minimum, a family of four in financial difficulty will go to the grocery store with that $130. They will not go to a restaurant. As long as they only get $5 off $130, they will head to the grocery store and have a nice meal.

I invite folks to look at their grocery receipt to see how much tax they pay. If they have bought household goods and, yes, diapers, it will be a few dollars. Actually, I do not understand why diapers and feminine hygiene products are taxed. Those things should never be taxed. In Quebec, total sales tax is 15%. Divide that by three to see what the GST savings will be. It is not very much. People will save a few cents on groceries a week.

Getting back to the bill, it would allow people to save the GST on catering. To be honest, ordinary people do not hire caterers, especially not if they are struggling financially. For the most part, this measure will help people with money. It will help people who already have money save even more money. They will save $50 in GST on a $1,000 catering bill. That means someone who can afford something that costs $1,000 will be able to save much more than someone who saves 25¢ on their grocery bill or a bag of candy, yet the person saving 25¢ is the one who needs it most. This measure is not targeting the right people.

There has been a lot of talk about business owners. Earlier, there was one member who mocked people, saying that 30 years ago, prices used to change every week. Yes, prices used to change every week 30 years ago because all we had to do was turn the dial on a little machine and re-label the products. Then computers came along, but they were often the 1980-88 models with the spinach-green screens. That was not the same level of programming at all. I used to work at grocery stores back then. I know how much time it could take. Then there are the extra costs. There is the cost of the time it will take to check the inventory, to determine what is taxable and what is not. Reprogramming will also cost thousands of dollars. In Quebec, there is the cost of administering the collection of the GST. This is going to be complicated, and there is nothing in the bill to support Quebec and the provinces, which will have to deal with the chaos that will be unleashed for two months.

To close, when I look at this, I see some things that are good, like books and diapers. I agree, but it should target the people in greatest need, the poorest, and this bill does not do that. It really seems like a purely vote-seeking strategy thought out by people who tried to predict who is going to vote. Will it be those with the most money or those with less? Will it be people who live day-by-day, or those who can see beyond the end of their noses?

I cannot vote for this bill because it does not target the right people, not to mention that it is only effective for two months. If this measure were permanent, then maybe, but that is not the case. People are not stupid. They will catch on.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, a family of four that can afford to spend $100 on a restaurant meal in Quebec ends up paying $115. The GST is 5%, and the QST is about 10%. Then there is the $15 tip. If the government removes the GST on restaurant meals, this family will save $5. Will that really make a difference? Will that really make it possible for an average family with financial difficulties to go to a restaurant, or is the government just blowing smoke?

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, for the past while, I have been listening to members boast about lifting the GST for a couple of months so that people can get a better deal on groceries.

However, here is what groceries look like for people living on a budget: milk, not taxed; eggs, not taxed; vegetables, not taxed; fruit, not taxed; pasta, not taxed; and meat, not taxed when it is on sale. Items that are usually taxed include chips, candy, beer, diapers, personal care products and household products, although the last two are not on the list of products that will be exempted. That is what I was looking at two minutes ago.

In the end, is it right to say that the government, by making this argument, is mistaking people for imbeciles?

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I asked the government members some questions earlier, but I did not really get any answers, so here is my question.

Does my hon. colleague think that the most vulnerable people, such as single mothers, low-income seniors and low-income families, are the people covered by this bill and those who can afford to spend money on catering and champagne?

I would also like my colleague to explain how he would define clothing for 14-year-olds. When my son was 14, he wore size 14 shoes and was over six feet tall. Would his clothes qualify? He was certainly the right age.

Perhaps my colleague could provide some details that the government could not.

[Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C‑78, November 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I noticed yesterday when I looked at the bill that the tax was removed from games, but not video games. Later on, I saw that video game media, meaning cartridges, were tax-exempt. However, the game itself and the cartridge are not taxed separately because they are sold together. Is that not further proof of the government's lack of organization, planning, foresight and consistency?