44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 23, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member and, certainly, for some of the work that we have done on issues of shared concern related to human trafficking and other things.
Again, this is one of the fundamental differences between the way, generally, that Liberals and Conservatives approach the issues.
While the Liberals are going to double the GST tax credit that will go back to Canadians, Conservatives made it very, very clear over the last number of months, and, in fact, we brought forward a number of initiatives in the House that the Liberals voted against that would have helped address the massive increases that Canadians were facing. These were things like cutting the GST on fuel, gasoline, diesel and propane, which Conservatives proposed as a practical, common-sense solution, and the Liberals voted against. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy, I would suggest, in how Conservatives approach the government purse and the way that tax policy impacts Canadians.
This is giving dollars back to Canadians who did pay the GST, no question. However, we need to fundamentally understand that these are Canadians' dollars. I would certainly suggest that it is Canadians who know best how to spend their dollars, so we should be thinking more seriously about leaving those dollars in their pockets.
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We do not always agree with the Conservatives on certain topics, like inflation, for example. We do not agree that the government is entirely responsible for inflation. There is the global situation, but there is also a labour shortage that is contributing to lower demand and higher prices.
One of the Bloc Québécois's proposed solutions to the labour shortage is to create incentives for experienced workers.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one of our proposals, which is to offer a tax credit for experienced workers. We are not talking about giving them money after having taken some away. We are talking about having them pay less tax in order to encourage them to come back to the labour market. I am looking for a consensus and would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this Bloc Québécois proposal.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, certainly, to the labour shortage that our country is facing, that is something that demands public policy solutions. I would note that, over the course of this first week back after the summer break, Conservatives have been talking about making sure that we are empowering new Canadians, removing the barriers they face, the gatekeepers, which come to many new Canadians when they come to Canada, many of whom are experienced and have significant amounts of education and training and whatnot, so that they can be employed in the professions they are trained in.
That is good public policy. That is compassionate. That is supporting new Canadians who want to contribute to Canadian society. What has been really, really troubling, and I hope that we can come together with the Bloc, and maybe the NDP can be convinced of this as well, to figure out a path forward, as the opposition controls the balance of power in the House.
What has been really disappointing is that when Conservatives talk about this, the Liberals seem to roll their eyes and laugh. It is very, very disappointing.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting, in terms of the lesson that the hon. colleague wanted to give about the left and the right. He mentioned the word “control”, saying that the left wants to control people's money, yet, ultimately, I would argue that with that money we want to support people. That is the difference between building larger institutions, building social programs and ensuring that there is equality within those social programs that goes to everybody.
Ultimately, with these corporate tax cuts that they are talking about, that goes to a very specific group of people. With respect to that corporate greed and not sharing that money, for it to go into offshore accounts and into their own pockets, how does the hon. member expect a government to govern and provide social programs if it does not have a fair tax policy?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question from the member for the NDP, the best way to make sure we have strong social programs is a prosperous economy, because when Canadians prosper, they are able to pay the taxes. When businesses prosper, they are able to pay taxes. When our nation prospers, that is the best way to ensure that we have a strong social safety net to protect those who need supports. I find it so unfortunate that the policies of the NDP specifically were devastating in my province of Alberta, and we are seeing the devastation that left-leaning policies are having on the economy and our nation. That needs to change.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by taking this opportunity to share my concern for my constituents and all Atlantic Canadians who are preparing for Hurricane Fiona’s landfall this weekend. Reports are suggesting that Hurricane Fiona could be Canada’s strongest storm ever, and the peak winds and rain may arrive early Saturday morning at high tide.
The arrival of this generational storm at high tide poses a strong risk for coastal communities throughout my riding and the province. I encourage everyone to take the advice of public safety officials, stay indoors and wait out the storm. Please monitor emergency service websites and social media pages, along with traditional media, for the latest updates on the storm.
This historic storm has the potential to cause massive destruction, and I am in constant contact with local municipal, provincial and federal government officials to ensure that all the support that my constituents may need is in place.
Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-30 on behalf of my community. This bill provides a doubling of the GST rebate in the next payment cycle, and then the rebate will go back to its current levels. The one-time payment will vaporize with Liberal inflation, which will cost more than the benefit.
This bill is one that we should not even have to have a discussion on, and it should not even be before the House. The government is finally coming to grips with the fact that Canadians are struggling right now, but it is its endless spending and money printing that got us here. The half-trillion dollars of Liberal spending means all the money chasing limited goods pushes prices up.
This 40-year record inflation, not seen since Pierre Trudeau days, and for the same reasons, means life has become more expensive for Canadians trying to pay rent and buy food. Wages are not going up to match inflation, causing even more hardship, at least for now. We should not be in a place where one-time relief is needed.
The Liberals should never have caused this record-breaking inflation. While Liberal MPs enjoy their benefits and jet around the world having $3,000 meals on private jets, inflation is having real-world impacts on everyday Canadians. Surveys show that 24% of Canadians have reduced the groceries they buy, and food banks are reporting a 170% rise in customers.
Let us take Nancy, from the South Shore in my riding. She lives on disability and receives $895 a month. Due to the skyrocketing cost of home heating, her oil bill in the winter is $700 a month. If we add on the bare necessities, like food, Internet, phone, and gas for her car, it does not really leave anything at the end of the month, if she can even pay for those.
Nancy has to drive to Halifax from her home in rural Nova Scotia every three months for treatment because of her disability. However, ever since the price of gas shot up, it has become more difficult to afford to go into the city for her treatments.
Thanks to Liberal inflation, people like Nancy need to decide if they should be using the fuel in their car to pick up groceries or receive medical treatment. Nancy worked hard and faced an unfortunate setback. Like so many, she simply cannot keep up with inflation.
We can also talk about Cameron from my riding. His mother lives a mere 35 kilometres away, in rural Nova Scotia. Cameron needs to get to work, feed his family and put clothes on his kids’ backs. However, because of the high cost of fuel, Cameron cannot afford to visit his own mother, who is only 35 kilometres away.
It is stories like this that I and many of us in this place have heard over the past year. Regular, hard-working Canadians are facing impossible financial decisions simply due to government spending that has caused the price of everything to skyrocket.
The government’s proposals do little to solve the problem. The GST rebate will provide welcome relief that Conservatives support, but it will not address the real problem, which is that inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rate in 40 years.
Here is what Robert Kavcic, senior economist at the Bank of Montreal, had to say on this. He 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.
There we have it. As the Liberals continue to spend, Canadians will continue to suffer.
While Conservatives welcome this much-needed support, the one-time cheque of $467, for a family of four that is eligible for this benefit, covers less than 40% of the Liberal inflation at the grocery store and does not begin to cover the rising costs of heat, gasoline or rent. The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year to put food on the table. Grocery prices are up almost 11%. More than 70% of families with children will not receive support. Liberal inflation is hitting these families hard while the Liberals ignore the issues.
The Conservatives have called for the Liberals to scour government spending to find savings to pay for these proposals to avoid adding to the costs. Let us start with axing the $25-million ArriveCAN app altogether, scrapping the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank and reducing the bloated bureaucracy. Departments like DFO have doubled their HR department in the last three years. There are more than 800 HR people in DFO alone now. I guess it needs this because the department has grown by 4,300 employees in only three years. While Canadians lost their jobs, DFO went on a job-hiring binge. That is why the new Conservative leader promises to introduce a pay-as-you-go law for the federal government. The plan will make sure that, if it wants to spend a dollar more, it has to find a dollar in savings.
If the Liberals were serious about making life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, another thing they would do is cancel the tripling of the carbon tax immediately. It is not just groceries, gas and home heating the government has raised taxes on. In fact, it is difficult to find anything that the current government has not raised taxes on.
During the pandemic, the Liberal government raised payroll taxes and alcohol taxes three times. On top of that, it removed key tax credits that families depended on, like the fitness and arts credits, along with public transit credits. Now it is raising the payroll taxes of EI and CPP. This means every Canadian will be taking home less money at the end of each month. These taxes are coming at the worst possible time for Canadian families who are struggling with rising costs.
Instead of freezing taxes, or better yet reducing them, the Liberal government is raising taxes on people who are struggling to make ends meet. This is causing structural inflation. High spending and increased taxes can only be fixed with structural changes to government spending, not with one-off measures.
The bill will provide a one-time temporary relief, but it does not have to be this way. It does not have to be this type of relief. The best solution is a permanent one, not a temporary one. It is to restrain government spending, which causes inflation, lower taxes and eliminate the tripling of the carbon tax.
The hurt inflicted on Canadians by the government must stop. Canadians cannot simply afford the current government anymore.
1304 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to send my best wishes to my colleague across the way and his constituency in advance of Hurricane Fiona. I hope his community is spared, that everyone stays safe and that they are able to avoid the worst of this very dangerous storm.
I would like to ask my colleague across the way this. He mentioned the supports the people in his riding have been asking for. With global inflation, which is a phenomenon around the world, will he be supporting Bill C-30?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the member's kind and caring words about the situation the people in my community and province face. As I am sure we all do in the House, I hope it is not as bad as it is projected to be.
With respect to this bill, absolutely I am supporting it. I support the idea. As I said, I wish it was not that we have to provide a one-time relief payment of $500 to people because of high inflation, and instead got at the root problem of the issue, which is higher inflation caused by excessive government spending and the printing of money by the Bank of Canada. Putting all of that money into the system means more money chasing fewer goods, which causes the price of everything to go up. That is what we should be dealing with. If we had dealt with that in the first place, there would be no need for this bill.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Our thoughts are with the people in his large riding who may be affected by the hurricane.
My question is about Bill C-30. We are well aware that inflation is still rising. It is affecting families, seniors and citizens. We know that, since July, the cost of goods and services in Canada has gone up by a shocking 7.6% compared to last year.
What will happen to our families who are living day to day? Usually people try to plan a few months ahead. These families are suffering as a result of inflation.
I would like to know what solutions you are proposing to make this more regulated and for things to move faster. We have been waiting a long time for these long-overdue measures from the current government.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the member for her thoughts on the hurricane that is approaching my province.
I think that is a great question. We have expressed, quite consistently, since the election last year in 2021, that one of the big things that we have to do in this chamber, in this House, to reduce the inflationary pressures on Canadians, is to deal with the taxes on fuel. The taxes on fuel come in the form of the HST and the carbon tax. In fact, the HST is a tax on top of the carbon tax, or one way or the other. I cannot keep straight which level of taxes the Liberals put on to tax other levels of Liberal taxes.
In this case, those massive taxes on fuel mean that everything we eat or buy has to be transported by truck. That forces the cost of transportation up, which forces the cost of everything up. The structural issue we need to deal with is to reduce taxes on fuel, eliminate the carbon tax on fuel and eliminate the carbon tax on home heating oil. We have to heat with oil from Saudi Arabia in my province, which will cost the average household $600 to $700 more a year. If those taxes are reduced that will deal with the permanent structural problem we have with inflation.
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am always a little bit amazed that when the Conservatives are talking about inflationary pressures they neglect to talk about the profiteering that is going on with wealthy corporations, the war that is happening in Ukraine and the supply chain issues that have happened over the last two years. I suppose that if we use that same logic of making it attributable to one political party, in the U.K. we could call it Conservative inflation.
I am glad to hear that the member is supporting Bill C-30. As to Bill C-31, however, he talked about Liberal benefits. Why does he feel that Conservative MPs should have dental benefits but their constituents should not?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the quick answer to that is that eight out of 10 provinces already have a dental program for low-income people. In Ontario, they have one. In Nova Scotia, they have one for children under 15. The Liberals are duplicating provincial efforts and wasting taxpayer dollars.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-30 and add my voice to this. I hope I am bringing a bit more light than heat, because I have been listening here for a while and there seems to be a lot of heat but I am not sure how much light there is in it.
I am splitting my time with my favourite colleague from Toronto—Danforth. I look forward to what she has to say and possibly look forward more to what she has to say than to what I have to say.
I also want to extend my concerns to our colleagues and the people of Nova Scotia and the Maritimes generally for what they are facing this weekend.
I cannot help but make the observation of dissonance between what this chamber, particularly on the Conservative side of things, says and the realities of climate change. How many once-in-a-lifetime events do we have to have every year before we realize that climate change is among us? We have been watching the floods in Pakistan. We have been watching the fires out in western Canada and watching California literally burn down. We express sympathy for that. We rush in as best we can to repair the damage after the fact. However, we fail to deal with the fundamental issue that is before us, which is the reality of climate change.
Therefore, the most practical solution is to apply a cost to the carbon that we all put in the air. We all put it into the air, yet we are extremely resistant to doing anything about it. I just want to make that as an observation. There is a dissonance between the way we talk about climate change and the climate emergency, and the willingness to actually make the sacrifices that are necessary in the form of some form of taxation or costing, in order to be able to mitigate the costs.
However, this is a discussion about Bill C-30. It is a bill that, it looks like, enjoys virtually unanimous support in the House. It is one of a suite of measures that the government is taking to fight inflation. I am kind of amused by that language: fighting inflation. I am sure inflation is just scared that the Government of Canada, the governments of the provinces or any government is fighting it, because inflation is what inflation is.
I have found that the members opposite are really quite elegant and eloquent in describing the problem, which is the high cost of groceries, the high cost of fuel, the high cost of rent, etc., and are very able to do that. I have heard it in my own riding. I have found that the answers that I give in my own riding do not resonate. When I say that it is partly due to Putin's war, the response of my constituents is “we do not care”. When I say it is difficulties with supply chains, my constituents say, “we do not care”. When it is having to do with various other causes, my constituents just do not care. The reality is that they want me, us, the government, to do something.
The government actually has a limited array of things that it can do to fight inflation. The first one, of course, is monetary policy. This is generally where everyone nods off who is not already asleep because monetary policy is possibly the most boring thing ever. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your getting an extra coffee before I rose to speak.
Monetary policy is essentially run by the Government of Canada. Years ago, the government made a very wise decision to take monetary policy out of this chamber, out of the political vicissitudes of the day, according to whatever the government or the Parliament of the day thought should be done with monetary policy, so that is run independently.
Some of us can criticize the Bank of Canada, and some members of the opposition in particular seem to be very enthusiastic about criticizing the operation of monetary policy. I could even make the argument that it started to raise interest rates a little slowly. However, it certainly has done what it can do to raise interest rates and restrict the supply of money.
Doing that, however, has consequences. The consequence is that it slows economic activity, and when we slow economic activity, we create unemployment. That is not a very good outcome for any of us, really. That is the consequence of monetary policy, and it needs to be moved forward.
The previous member talked about the government of Mr. Trudeau in the seventies. I was around in the seventies and remember stagflation. Stagflation meant having the worst of both world: inflation plus a high unemployment rate. Fortunately, we are not there, and possibly we have learned something about the application of monetary policy.
That is the first instrument any government has for dealing with this. It is being executed as well as it can be executed, and there has been some impact in cooling the real estate market.
The second array of the government's abilities is fiscal policy. Notwithstanding what some might say, this government is in relatively good shape with regard to debt-to-GDP ratio. I know we ran the debt-to-GDP ratio up during the COVID era, but there are no free lunches in this world and it will need to be dealt with.
At this point, a couple of things have been done well, one of which is buying long-term debt at low interest rates, so the cost of debt, at this point at least, is limited. We also have a reasonable unemployment rate at this point, so there is full employment and a government that has its fiscal house under control, although I would not say in order. There are challenges in managing that, but still, the fiscal situation is not bad for this country.
The third element of any government's approach to inflation is programs. That is part of what we are talking about with Bill C-30 and the temporary increase in the amount of HST refund for those who qualify, which is primarily people with an income of under $40,000 a year.
In my riding, the Canada child benefit is a huge benefit. It is $100 million a year going into my riding, affecting something in the order of 8,000 of families. The money goes to the people who actually need it the most. Economists can make the argument that we are putting money into the economy and are therefore creating our own level of inflationary pressures. There is some truth to that, but if it is a choice between rent and eating, I am sure my constituents appreciate the Canada child benefit, just as they appreciate the rent subsidy, the carbon rebate and the child care program that is going forward.
These are all programs that a government can put forward. It is a reasoned response to a very difficult situation largely caused from outside the country on a relatively small economy.
1204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, regarding the inflation we are currently facing and this particular bill, Bill C-30, “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.” That is from a senior economist at the Bank of Montreal.
In budget 2022, the government identified that it had a policy review of billions of dollars of potential savings it could find and indicated it could pare that back. Would the member say that it would have been far more ideal for the Minister of Finance to have done the hard work over the summer to find savings within the Government of Canada's policy review and then bring this bill forward so that we are not actually increasing inflation? Does he agree with that, yes or no?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as members know, I have been here for a long time, some might say too long, and every government that has ever been here in that time has always said there are savings to be found over here, over there, etc. What the hon. member is describing is very difficult work. It is an ongoing process, and I do anticipate that the Minister of Finance has been doing it.
On the first part of his question, I will quote an economist, an Atkinson fellow. I better not pronounce the name or I will mess it up. She wrote, “In truth the measures are so modest, [at] only $3.2 billion”. The impact on the economy is very modest.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are really glad to see the Liberals finally get on board with doubling the GST tax credit to help 11 million Canadians, something the NDP has been pushing hard for, but one thing we believe is that we need to go much further. We have seen oil and gas companies with record profits. Banks have record profits. Grocery store chains have record profits. Telecom and wireless companies have record profits. Fees on consumers are going up in all of those sectors.
We saw the Conservatives in Great Britain create an excess profit tax of 25% on big oil. We would never see that from the Conservatives here, because they are the lobbyists for the oil and gas companies.
Does my colleague believe we need to do more? I see the 1.5% increase on big banks and excess profit, but the Liberals are letting oil and gas off the hook. They are letting the big grocery store chains off the hook. They are letting wireless operators off the hook. Greedflation is taking over. Does my colleague agree that more needs to be done here?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the benefit of being here a long time is that this seems to be a go-to position of my friends on the left.
There is an excess profits tax. All of these companies the member is complaining about, if they fall within the band of excess profits, will be taxed directly for that. I take note, as he did, of the excess profits tax for banks and insurance companies. There will be a gathering of revenues. I also take note that lately, primarily because of the low unemployment rate, the government's revenues have been quite robust, again speaking to the point that the government's management of its finances has been quite exemplary.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have not been a member of the House for very long, but I am sure that if I had been, I would have been happy to have the member around for a long time with me.
I have a question about the timing of the introduction of Bill C-30. It is a relatively simple bill that is quite easy to implement. We already knew when the budget was tabled in the spring that inflation was going to be an issue.
Could this bill have been introduced earlier and provided help sooner to people who are struggling right now because of inflation?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course it could have been tabled earlier. Whether that would have been a wise tabling, I do not really know.
This is part of an array of initiatives on the part of the Government of Canada to mitigate the complaints we are all hearing. There is not a member in this House who has not heard about the inflationary pressures on our constituents, so as part of an entire array, I think this bill is a worthy initiative. The fiscal policy is being handled as well as it can be handled, with maybe a slow start on monetary policy. I still think the Bank of Canada is moving forward on that front as well.
When taken together, the array of measures and initiatives on the part of the government writ large is an appropriate response to a worldwide phenomenon on a relatively small economy, and hopefully—
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/23/22 1:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
I hate to cut off the hon. member but we are out of time.
Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
