Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 65 of “Telling Our Story.”

Today, I want to tell you about a satirical tribute to the history of Newfoundland and Labrador known as the “screech-in.” It may give you an additional reason to come visit our beautiful province.

A long time ago, before any rules or regulations dealing with the selling of liquor became the law of the land, salt fish from Newfoundland was being shipped to the West Indies in exchange for rum. This resulted in fish becoming the national dish for Jamaicans and the dark rum becoming the traditional drink for Newfoundlanders. At that time, the 80-proof rum did not have a name, and the delightful product may have continued to be a nameless rum except for the influx of American servicemen to Newfoundland during World War II.

Legend has it that during a visit to a local pub, a visiting American serviceman downed the rum in one quick toss. His howls of distress caused another patron of the bar to rush to his aid, shouting out, “What the cripes was that ungodly screech?” A Newfoundlander sitting close by simply replied, “The screech? ’Tis the rum, me son.”

As word of the incident spread, more of the visiting soldiers began trying this mysterious rum, adopting it as their favourite. Thus, a legend was born. The “screech” name stuck, and today the rum and its place in Newfoundland’s culture have become legendary.

Then in 1974, when brainstorming for a Canadian Teachers’ Federation conference in St. John’s, Merle Vokey came up with the idea of the screech-in to top what had been done in a previous year in another province. Today, it is arguably Newfoundland’s most marketed tradition. When a person completes the screech-in ceremony, they become an honorary Newfoundlander. Now b’ys, it doesn’t get much better than that.

Now, for those who may not have experienced a screech-in ceremony and, more importantly, for those who would like to do so, let me tell you about some of the details of such an event.

The ceremony can take place anywhere in the province such as someone’s kitchen, down on a wharf, in the local community centre or in any of the pubs and bars on our famous George Street in St. John’s, but it can only be conducted by a born and bred Newfoundlander. There is no exception to this rule.

There are variations of the ceremony in different parts of the province. The event usually begins with some good Newfoundland music playing in the background and the entrance of the “master screecher” of the night, decked out in full fisherman’s rain gear or at least a sou’wester. He or she will announce that there are some CFAs in the audience — that is “come from away” for those who do not know — and that they want to become Newfoundlanders.

Each participant is asked to introduce themselves and where they come from, and then they are given a shot of screech to hold in their hands. If one is lucky, there would be more than one shot of screech in the glass, but I digress for a moment.

While holding tightly to their shot of screech, the master screecher will ask the participants if they want to become a Newfoundlander, and the answer would be a hearty “yes, b’y.”

Then each person, while still holding their shot of screech, is asked, “Is you a Newfoundlander?” and they are taught the proper response, which I am not going to repeat here today, but translated means, “Yes I am, my old friend, and may your sails always catch the wind.”

That then is followed by the eating of a slice of Newfoundland steak, better known as a slice of baloney. Then a fish — most likely a cod fish — is held up to the wanting lips of a participant who then bestows the fish with a kiss. It could be a frozen fish, but if you strike a lucky day, the cod fish could be fresh out of the water with their tail still flapping when you pucker up.

Then to finish off the ceremony, the participant downs the shot of screech in one smooth mouthful and has earned their title as “Honorary Newfoundlander” and will be presented with an official certificate to show everybody back home.

So if anyone is planning a visit to my home province, let me know and I will gladly assist you in making the arrangements for a screech-in. Long may your big jib draw!

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I wish to thank Senator Tony Loffreda for his very gracious and kind comments about me yesterday. I was, sadly, not in the chamber. Let’s put it down to the vagaries of Air Canada. But I do really appreciate them. I should tell you that he, too, was a rock star, especially as he placed his substantive comments in the context of his own compelling personal narrative. Senator Loffreda, I’m happy to go with you on the road again any time. We do a good two-step.

Substantively, I came back with three distinct but interconnected challenges. The first is the incredible rise in global displacement. These figures are not to be taken lightly, colleagues. We’re now at 100 million globally displaced people. Along with this unfortunate rise in global displacement, there is another disturbing trend, which is the global meltdown in governance and solidarity.

Second, there is the looming challenge of climate migration. In 30 short years, the International Metropolis Conference, or IOM, has estimated that we will see 1.5 billion — not million — people be displaced. We don’t know where they will go, and we don’t know how they will get to safety.

Third, there is the growing number of so-called low-skilled workers moving for work and filling labour market gaps in essential work — in OECD countries — without certainty for their future, as well as without any predictability for employers. In Germany, I was reminded by Germans about their field experiment with their guest workers, the Gastarbeiter. They paraphrased it to me as, “We wanted workers; we didn’t realize we were getting human beings instead.” Let’s keep that experience in mind.

In each of these buckets, sadly, there is less and less multilateralism, when, in fact, we need more and more. If there is a silver lining I came back with, it’s at the bilateral level. It is the policy coherence and values alignment between Germany and Canada, whether it is energy policy, trade, climate change or migration. As a member of the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group, I look forward to deepening these bilateral ties in the next couple of years under the capable leadership of our chair, Senator Boehm. Thank you.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, last year, on Christmas Day, a rocket carrying the James Webb Space Telescope launched from French Guiana, ushering in an era of scientific discovery that is set to unveil some of the longest-held mysteries the universe has thus far hidden from us.

Sitting in orbit 1.5 million kilometres from earth and essentially having to unfold its mirrors and tennis-court-sized sun shield remotely, James Webb is a marvel of engineering that is the result of decades of work and collaboration between NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency. I will, of course, use my time today to discuss how Canada has contributed to this project.

Critical to the operation of the telescope is its Canadian-engineered Fine Guidance Sensor, which was designed to find and lock onto cosmic targets and is crucial for the long-exposure imagery needed for the telescope to provide the kind of imagery required for quality science to be conducted.

Some of you might be familiar with one of the first images released by the James Webb team in July. It was a field of stars and galaxies littered across a scarlet background, with some stars blacked out with refraction points extending beyond. This was captured using the Fine Guidance Sensor. Though just a test image, it gave a hint of what was to come.

The Canadian Space Agency’s other contribution was the Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph, or NIRISS for short. Using a camera sensitive to infrared wavelengths, the NIRISS captures the infrared light emitted by objects and gathers information about the spectra of distant planets. This is where some of the real science will emerge from James Webb, and includes its ability to examine the composition of the atmospheres of exoplanets orbiting other stars. In doing so, scientists will be able to determine if these planets have water, methane, oxygen and other molecules associated with life here on earth.

Senators, if you’re wondering and if you’ve forgotten, this was about the third month of your Grade 11 physics class, when you did light refraction, telescopes and all kinds of things in that area.

In exchange for our contribution to this project, Canadian scientists are guaranteed a share of Webb’s observation time. This means that our scientists will be at the forefront of groundbreaking scientific discoveries, which could include not only if other planets might harbour life but when some of the first stars and galaxies formed some 13 billion years ago, as well as the mysteries of dark matter, which makes up roughly 85% of the mass in the universe but we know very little about.

I look forward to learning what they have to tell us, and I’m sure you do as well. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Martin, thank you for the question. First of all, I think all of us in this chamber want to congratulate the new mayor of Vancouver. It’s an historic moment for Vancouver’s first Chinese-Canadian mayor. And we should celebrate our democracy, which gives people a chance to hold their governments to account and to make changes when appropriate. But it’s simply not the case that this Government of Canada — or any government, frankly, of whatever stripe — is responsible for the opioid crisis, for worldwide inflation and for the inflated cost of housing in Vancouver, which is hardly an issue.

I lived and studied in Vancouver, proudly and happily, in the 1970s. It wasn’t cheap then, and it has gotten completely out of hand now.

The fact is that this government is working with its provincial counterparts and municipal governments where appropriate. It is doing what it can to address the opioid crisis and, in fact, to divert people from the criminal justice system when it’s really a health issue. We have a bill before us now in committee that is studying the issue to that effect. I will not repeat yet again the very important measures that the government has introduced to assist Canadians with the rising costs of living caused by the global pandemic, the war in Ukraine and other factors that are worldwide in nature.

So, yes, congratulations to the mayors and the citizens who elected them, but, no, this government is on a strong path to help Canada emerge from the pandemic and to grow our economy in a safe and sustainable way.

Hon. Paula Simons: My question is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communication.

Senator Housakos, on Wednesday, October 5, our committee heard from a witness, Blayne Haggart, a professor at Brock University. You, in fact, praised his testimony. You said that if you had professors more like him, maybe you would have stayed in university. But this Saturday, Dr. Haggart received a surprising email signed by you. It says:

Hello, Blayne. Right now the Trudeau Liberals are dangerously close to being able to control what you see and say online.

It continues:

[Bill C-11] is online censorship, pure and simple.

And then in bold print:

Canadians have a right to freedom of expression online — they should not be censored by government gatekeepers.

But I’m just wondering, because you sent this to a witness we’ve just heard from who spoke in support of the bill so, presumably, future witnesses may have received a similar letter. I’m wondering if future witnesses, never mind past ones, will feel safe and welcome to speak freely to our committee, knowing that you, as committee chair, are sending out what might politely be called hyperbolic letters, attacking the bill, while you yourself are chairing the hearings?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Simons, firstly, what I said at the committee was that I found the testimony interesting. I didn’t say I agreed with it. Second of all, I think you’re talking about an email that went out to stakeholders and party membership of the Conservative Party of Canada, asking them to sign a petition.

I don’t know how the gentleman would have gotten on that particular list. He’s probably a member of the party, and that’s how he got on the list. So, at the end of the day, when you have 680,000 members, as the Conservative Party of Canada currently has — an historic number, the largest number of any political party in the history of the country —

Senator Plett: Wow. How many do the Liberals have?

Senator Housakos:  — obviously, you communicate with a lot of people. It’s called democracy. And, of course, when they receive these emails, they have the right to sign on if they agree with the content. They have the right to do whatever they think is appropriate. It’s called, again, democracy. I don’t think I have anything to apologize for. I think this is common practice in public discourse to be able to communicate your position and points of view with people.

Senator Housakos: For starters, section 4 of the bill is very concerning to me, as it has been a concern to you.

Ultimately, when you have the chair of the CRTC coming before our committee and publicly stating that this bill doesn’t take away from him the right to force platform providers to push algorithms toward a particular direction, that in itself, as far as I’m concerned, controls what people see and what people get to post. At the end of the day, I think there are many witnesses who have come before the committee and are very concerned about how algorithms are being used, both in terms of platform providers and in the future. This bill hasn’t been clear when it comes to these particular issues.

If you’re telling me that these concerns have not been addressed at our committee, I disagree. I’ve heard a number of stakeholders and witnesses address those concerns. I will continue to fight those concerns. If we’re a regular member of the committee, a chair of the committee or if we’re a part of this chamber in a leadership position, nothing takes away our right to express ourselves on a particular issue, and I will continue to do so.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: My question is also for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. It is a bit more general than Senator Simons’ question, but it pertains to the same email signed by the Honourable Senator Housakos.

Where do you draw the line between your responsibility as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which is currently examining Bill C-11, to ensure the smooth flow of debate in committee and the kind of messages that you sign as “the Honourable Senator Housakos” asking citizens to help you stop Bill C-11 in the Senate?

Can you enlighten us on where you draw the line?

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for enlightening us, but I already knew that. I am well aware that chairs can have an opinion of a bill. That is not what I was asking. As a member of a committee, I don’t have the same responsibilities as the chair of the committee.

As the person responsible for maintaining what I call the smooth flow of debate, you have to show openness and neutrality. You hear all sorts of opinions, those you agree with and those you might not. Where do you draw the line between those responsibilities, as chair, and keeping the debate flowing smoothly?

Senator Housakos: It’s not complicated. The work of the chair is by nature procedural and concerns the rules. As chair, I have a duty to enforce the rules and ensure that the committee operates fairly and justly. From day one, this committee has worked well, independently and transparently, and we will stay the course.

However, a chair cannot be prevented from taking a position on a bill. That has never been the case. Personally, the problem I see at the moment is that people are opposed to my point of view on the bill and not my work as chair of the committee. The work is about respecting procedure and the rules. Moreover, I have the right and the obligation to speak to a bill, as does the chair of any other committee of this institution.

[English]

Hon. Scott Tannas: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Today we welcomed Senator Osler to this chamber. She’s the nine hundred eighty-seventh person to be summoned to sit in the Senate of Canada since Confederation.

I think it’s an appropriate occasion to point out the 15 empty seats that remain in this chamber today; some have been vacant for a long time. In fact, one of British Columbia’s six seats in this chamber has been empty for over 1,000 days.

One of the six seats in my home province of Alberta has been unfilled for nearly two years. This is a big problem for a chamber that was created to guarantee regional representation in our Parliament.

It’s a different situation in the other place, as you would know, leader. A by-election must be called to fill a vacant seat within six months in the other place.

Would the government support a similar process for the Senate whereby the Prime Minister must recommend an appointment to this chamber when a seat is vacant for more than six months?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

We all look forward to having more Senate appointments announced so as to continue to receive senators, colleagues, of the quality that we need to do our work.

The process that this Prime Minister has introduced, a process whereby candidates are identified and vetted, is a different process. It is one that involves not simply an application process for those before it, but the constitution — in each and every region and province — of a committee jointly composed of two provincial or territorial representatives and three named by the government.

In some cases, though not all, the delay in appointments is a function of the failure of one of the jurisdictions to name their members to the committee. In other cases, frankly, it is just a function of the time that the process seems to take, and it’s longer than most of us would want.

I do not believe that your proposal is something that would find favour with the government, because it runs counter to the merit-based and participatory process not only of Canadians but of the committees that vet them.

However, it is always possible to improve processes. I will take your suggestion back to my colleagues in government so that they can reflect upon it further.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The short answer is I don’t know and I will make inquiries. As the honourable senator knows, and colleagues here would know as well, although Canada has the power through the Crown prerogative to enter into any treaties, the implementation of treaties requires legislation. In that regard, in matters dealing with labour, for example, this engages the provincial jurisdiction over labour, so it is not uncommon. And those with greater foreign affairs experience would probably attest that it is sometimes the case and it may or not be the case here. I will inquire.

But before Canada makes a commitment internationally, it needs to make sure it has some buy-in or participation from the provinces. I don’t know if that’s the case and I will certainly inquire. Thank you for raising that.

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved third reading of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading to speak to Bill C-30, a government bill introduced in the other place by our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, on September 20.

The fact that this bill was introduced on the first day of regular business after the summer recess indicates to us how important this bill is for the government. In fact, it shows us how important it is for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet during these extraordinary times of high inflationary pressure.

[Translation]

I spoke at length about this bill yesterday at second reading, and you can rest assured that I will not repeat everything I said.

[English]

I see some people smiling, which is nice.

[Translation]

I would simply remind all my colleagues that the objective of this bill is to give low- and moderate-income individuals and parents a little additional money under the GST/HST credit program.

The objective of this measure, a temporary six-month tax credit, is to help the most disadvantaged Canadians as we continue to fight above-average inflation.

I hope, and it is the government’s hope, that these additional amounts will help alleviate some of the financial difficulties of more than 11 million Canadian households that are striving to feed and clothe themselves.

I want to take a moment to make a small clarification about this matter as a follow-up to the question Senator Dupuis asked me yesterday. It is indeed 11 million households that are eligible for this supplementary benefit. According to the government, these 11 million households include about 9 million single people and almost 2 million couples.

[English]

Eleven million Canadians who already receive the tax credit will receive the top-up, but this represents approximately 11 million households. Let me explain that. It’s 9 million single people and 2 million couples. For the 2 million couples, the GST top-up is paid to the spouse or common-law partner whose return is assessed first. So as is the case in many tax policies and legislation, it gets a little complicated, but these are approximate numbers. The important point is that half of Canadian families and more than half of Canadian seniors will benefit from this top-up. That is the important point.

Yesterday I addressed the issue of inflation and highlighted some of the challenges with respect to working-age Canadians who don’t file their taxes. On the latter, I hope the government will take that issue seriously and seek a remedy. Minister Freeland acknowledged this is a problem and more needs to be done on the issue.

I wasn’t planning on addressing the issue of Canadians who don’t file their taxes again, but our National Finance Committee met this morning, and I have some additional information that might interest some senators.

The Canada Revenue Agency appeared before the committee and elaborated on some of the outreach efforts it deploys to assist citizens who might otherwise not file their taxes. The agency confirmed they have employees across the country working with various partners and community associations to increase knowledge and awareness of tax filing.

For instance, through the government’s Community Volunteer Income Tax Program, the agency hosts income tax clinics in numerous cities and communities. We were informed that — through this partnership program — approximately 600,000 returns were filed, and I’m told that it resulted in over $1.4 billion in tax returns and benefits being distributed.

In fact, just last week, the Minister of National Revenue announced enhanced funding for these volunteer organizations to better help Canadians with the costs involved in running such clinics. This funding will also benefit the northern CVITP clinics and clinics serving Indigenous populations. Additionally, the agency works with software developers to make sure that tax‑filing software is free of charge for low-income Canadians. The CRA also sends letters to Canadians who they believe could benefit from certain benefits, as well as encourages them to file.

With respect to the North — as a follow-up to Senator Patterson’s question yesterday — this morning, the CRA also addressed community outreach efforts in the territories. Witnesses reminded us of the opening of three centres — in the North — for in-person services. The CRA also introduced a dedicated telephone line for northern residents to compensate for some bandwidth challenges in the territories. According to the witnesses who appeared this morning, there had been 944 in‑person community visits in Indigenous communities, in the North, prior to the pandemic.

The CRA also mentioned that they have personnel who speak various Indigenous languages, including Inuktitut. They also have various products, including fact sheets, on the importance of filing taxes and how to file in various Indigenous languages. Witnesses confirmed that the CRA is currently working on products in 11 new languages, and these should be ready by the next tax-filing season.

I hope this new information is useful to those who are interested in community outreach by the CRA and some of its efforts in the North. It’s important knowledge to share and great work that’s done in our committees. That was the case this morning.

Honourable senators, it has been clear to me during our debate on Bill C-30 that many colleagues are concerned about broader economic questions, as well as about the overall health and stability of our economy. I, too, share these concerns, and I believe the government needs to re-evaluate some of its spending programs. I know the minister takes fiscal restraint seriously, too.

I was most pleased during Committee of the Whole when she said:

We recognize that all Canadians are cutting back on costs right now, and we recognize that our government needs to do that, too.

As she acknowledged on October 6:

. . . it’s been difficult for our government to strike a balance between compassionate support for those who need it the most and remaining fiscally responsible.

I totally appreciate that difficulty, and I have no doubt many of us in this chamber will keep a very close eye on future government spending. It’s a job I take seriously and enjoy greatly as a member of the National Finance Committee.

[Translation]

I would be remiss if I did not mention the degree of cooperation demonstrated in both houses of Parliament in examining this much-needed legislation. The fact that all parties in the other place support this bill speaks volumes about the need to put money in the pockets of low-income Canadians.

[English]

Some senators may be disappointed that this bill did not make its way to committee. Senator Marshall voiced her disappointment yesterday, and I can certainly appreciate that. However, this bill is straightforward, and there is an urgency for it to receive Royal Assent.

I appreciate that Minister Freeland made time for us, out of her busy schedule, to appear before the Senate for 90 minutes on October 6. Personally, I think that was sufficient for all of us — not just members of the National Finance Committee — to challenge the government and seek answers to our questions. In fact, I would suggest that some issues that were raised during Committee of the Whole may not have been addressed in committee.

We know we have been under pressure by the government to pass this bill today in order for the Canada Revenue Agency to get the ball rolling on this new rebate, with the expectation that the first top-up payment will be received before the holidays. If getting this bill adopted today means that families across this country may enjoy a better meal at Christmas, or some child might receive a new winter snowsuit, or parents can turn the heat up a bit higher during our cold winter months, I am certainly willing to vote in favour of this bill and ensure that it receive Royal Assent today.

Honourable senators, Bill C-30 is timely, temporary and necessary. If passed, the money that is going to be distributed for the GST top-up is, indeed, as the minister stated, “a significant sum of money.” As she said, in response to a question from Senator Plett, the measure in Bill C-30:

. . . is carefully targeted relief that is supporting the people who need it the most. It is absolutely within a fiscally responsible approach . . . .

I tend to agree with her, which is why I am honoured — as an independent senator from Quebec — to sponsor this government bill in the Senate. I hope all senators will join me in voting in favour of Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act, No. 1. Let’s get this done now and send a clear message to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet that we have their backs.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Indeed, Senator Woo, I agree with you completely that the distributional impact would be different in each case. I can’t to tell you in advance what that impact would be. What we do know is that the GST credit will be distributed via the tax system. However, as we heard in the speeches yesterday, a significant portion of our most vulnerable citizens don’t file income tax returns and therefore won’t benefit from it. This is a very short-term temporary measure.

Lowering the GST would have cost more, obviously, but it would have taken pressure off the Bank of Canada to stop raising interest rates so quickly. Lowering the GST would have benefited consumers, who wouldn’t have to spend so much, and it would also have reduced the macroeconomic costs of an anti-inflation strategy that is clearly not designed to address supply problems, and may even exacerbate them. That is specifically where the problem lies, and it needs to be addressed.

In the short term, we have to reduce demand to avoid worsening inflation and, in the medium term, we need to have a plan to improve supply chains.

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I’m not using this podium because of the length of my speech but rather because, as we get on, we all have different issues, and I may need something to lean on.

Colleagues, I rise this afternoon as well to speak to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. To be honest, colleagues, it’s difficult to know where to begin. I’ve seen a lot of bills introduced in this chamber since I was appointed as a senator, but I do not think any of them were as misleading as what this bill is.

The word “duplicitous” comes to mind, and if you Google the definition, you will find that Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “marked by duplicity: deceptive in words or action.” These are strong words, but allow me to explain and then judge for yourself if that description does not indeed fit this bill.

On the surface, the purpose of this legislation makes sense. It will put money back in the pockets of Canadians. It basically amounts to a tax refund, and for that reason, our Conservative caucus supported it unanimously in the House. I expect that it will be passed with the same support here in this chamber, and this is something I assured the Minister of Finance of when she was in this chamber. But as soon as you scratch the surface of this bill, you find that this bill is not at all what the government says it is.

While it is claiming to be a “Cost of Living Relief Act,” it is little more than a Band-Aid being applied to a gaping wound that the government insists on repeatedly poking. It does nothing to address the root of the problem and, in fact, will make it worse.

COVID-19 caused supply chain issues, and Vladimir Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine has driven up energy prices. Both of these have been significant factors in the increased cost of living we are currently experiencing. But even prior to these developments, colleagues, the government was on a collision course with reality, as it opened the floodgates on spending with no regard for the longer-term impact on our economic health. Much of the spending during COVID was necessary — it helped sustain individuals and our economy while we were trying to navigate uncertain waters with a novel coronavirus — but much of it was not.

The Fraser Institute last week released a study which documented what has already been observed by others when they wrote:

. . . a significant percentage of Ottawa’s huge spending increases during COVID, which produced large deficits and much more debt, had nothing to do with the pandemic . . . .

They went on to say:

. . . approximately 60 per cent of the federal budget deficit during the pandemic . . . related directly to COVID-19 . . . while the remaining 40 per cent was not related to the pandemic.

This is a government which believes it can spend its way out of any problem with no regard for the negative consequences. Even now, in the midst of an inflationary environment, they continue to pour fuel on this fire. You may recall that at the beginning of COVID, the Liberal government did not even think inflation would be a problem, even though Pierre Poilievre warned repeatedly that runaway government spending would undoubtedly result in inflation by increasing the money supply. An article in the Financial Post echoed these same concerns back in May of 2020, stating:

Theory states that a big increase in the money supply will result in runaway prices, and there are those who are adamant that the hundreds of billions of dollars the Bank of Canada intends to create over the next year can only end in a rerun of the 1970s.

Government debt has a long association with inflation, so the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s April 30 forecast that debt will spike to about 50% of gross domestic product in 2021 from about 30% in the previous year is making some people nervous. Apparently, some people did not include the federal government. Rather than being nervous about inflation, they dismissed the threat and mocked those who dared mention it. Instead, they lined up with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who captured this Liberal mindset the best when he said the bigger threat to the Canadian economy was deflation, not inflation.

Even when we began to move out of pandemic restrictions, and the inflation rate could be seen to be notching up, it was still not a priority for this government. Instead, their only concern was to not turn off the firehose of cash too quickly, even though businesses were struggling to find workers and begged the government to make benefits contingent on the recipients being prepared to return to work. The government refused. They assured us that inflation would only be transitory. But by January 19 of this year, Statistics Canada was reporting that the annual rate of inflation had already hit a 30-year high, and economists were warning that rates would climb further yet.

The very same day the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, which warned that the government’s planned stimulus of $100 billion was threatening to overstimulate the economy and contribute to inflation. The government, again, ignored these warnings.

By March, the so-called transitory inflation had risen to 6.7%, on its way to 8.1%. And yet, even as the government saw the numbers rising, they refused to consider holding their spending to pre-COVID levels. This year’s Main Estimates showed that the federal government has, in fact, expanded its fiscal policy by over $120 billion this fiscal year when compared to 2018-19. COVID spending is a bare sliver of what it was during the height of the pandemic, yet this government refuses to do the responsible thing and show a little restraint.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. They claim to care about skyrocketing prices, but they refuse to take any action on the things that are within their direct control. Grocery prices, for example, are up by 10.8%, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. I’ll just name a few: Fish is up 10.4%; butter, 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls and buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, up over 32%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; apples are up by almost 12%; coffee, up by 14.2%; soup, 19%; lettuce, 12.4%; and potatoes are up by almost 11%.

The average family of four is now spending $1,200 more each year just to put food on the table, not to mention the rising cost of heat, gasoline and rent.

And in the midst of soaring food costs and people struggling to feed their families, the Liberal government decided it was a great time to target an arbitrary 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions by 2030. This was in spite of warnings from the ag sector that:

. . . reaching 30% is not realistically achievable without imposing significant costs on Canada’s crop producers and potentially damaging the financial health of Canada’s crop production sector.

Furthermore, while family budgets are being crushed by rising energy prices, the response of this government was to raise prices further by increasing taxes. We are the only country in the G7 that has raised fuel taxes during this period of record inflation, and the government is steadfast in its plan to move ahead with a tripling of the carbon tax.

A report by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation last week noted that while more than half the G7 and G20 countries, and two thirds of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development are cutting taxes, “. . . the federal government has recently increased the carbon tax, alcohol taxes, and payroll taxes” instead of providing tax relief.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted:

Australia cut its gas tax in half. The United Kingdom announced billions in fuel tax relief. The Netherlands cut its gas tax by 17 cents per litre. South Korea cut its taxes at the pumps by 30 per cent. India cut gas taxes to “keep inflation low, thus helping the poor and middle classes.”

But what did our NDP-Liberal government do? Instead of adopting policies to help reduce inflation, this government keeps inventing new ideas to make life even more unaffordable for Canadians.

Colleagues, if the government really wanted to reduce inflation, they could do it simply and easily. They could reduce the GST. In fact, 18 countries, including Belgium, Germany and Norway, have reduced consumption taxes to make life more affordable.

As noted by Senator Bellemare when the Minister of Finance was here, GST revenues have increased by almost 50% in one year. Part of that is linked to inflation, because the one thing that inflation helps is government revenue. Higher inflation means higher tax revenue without even having to increase the tax rate — a Liberal’s dream.

Last week, in his Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that inflation will add an additional $83 billion to the federal government’s coffers over the next five years.

A reduction in the GST tax rate would automatically lower inflation. And as noted by Senator Bellemare at the Committee of the Whole, this is not a novel idea. She pointed out that:

France has experimented with similar kinds of measures and, according to its National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, they have had a meaningful and significant impact. France’s current inflation rate is 5%, not 8%.

But rather than taking meaningful action, this government decided to do the only thing it knows how to do: try to spend its way out of the problem.

The government’s response to a crisis, which they helped to create through unrestrained government spending, is to spend even more money. After starting the inflationary fire that we find ourselves in today, they cannot resist pouring fuel onto it.

Minister Freeland admitted that increasing government spending can make the problem worse when she said:

. . . We cannot compensate every single Canadian for the rising costs that are driven by the global pandemic and by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. To do so would only make inflation worse and make the Bank of Canada’s job harder.

For what was perhaps the first and only time that I have found myself agreeing with Minister Freeland, blasting inflation with more spending is like a fire department that sprays gasoline on a fire in an attempt to put it out. What the finance minister failed to acknowledge, however, is that whether you put a little gasoline on a fire or a lot, it has the same result.

Economists around the world have been warning about this.

On September 22, the headline of a Financial Post article was very clear when it said, “. . . Government aid to help with rising prices risks fuelling ‘inflationary fire,’ economists warn.”

The CIBC, Bank of Montreal and Bank of Nova Scotia have all released reports expressing concern over using revenue windfalls for additional spending.

CIBC’s Avery Shenfeld said, “While there are times when fiscal largesse is just what the economy needs, these aren’t such times.”

Andrey Pavlov, at Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business said:

. . . while the Bank of Canada is doing quite a bit to bring inflation down . . . the government hasn’t really done much of anything.

Derek Holt from Scotiabank said:

. . . it seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation . . . . Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.

I have no idea which economics textbooks our finance minister studied or, indeed, if she studied any, but one thing is certain: She is misleading Canadians by making them think that this bill is a cost of living relief act. In the end, it will do nothing to relieve the cost of living and only pretends to do so.

You may have noticed that when the finance minister was here for the Committee of the Whole, I asked her a point-blank question:

Did your department conduct any analysis of the impact that this spending measure will have on the inflation rate in Canada?

It’s a fair question, I thought. If economists are warning that measures such as this could make things worse, then Canadians have a right to know if the government bothered to take the time to determine what that impact would be. Maybe it’s a little or maybe it’s a lot. The problem is that we will never know because the finance minister refused to answer even the most basic of questions — although we shouldn’t think that is a surprise, the way we get questions answered.

In fact, the finance minister refused to answer every question I asked her, and instead used the opportunity to regurgitate her unhelpful talking points like she was attending Question Period in the other place.

I asked if her department conducted an analysis of the impact that this spending will have on the inflation rate in Canada, and all I got was reassurances that she takes spending very seriously.

That we already knew, colleagues. About the only thing this NDP-Liberal government takes seriously is spending, which is why they are still spending $120 billion more than before COVID. They are very serious about spending as much money as they can because they are convinced that the budget will balance itself, and the Prime Minister cannot be bothered to think about monetary policy.

However, colleagues, we did not invite the minister here to parade her talking points in front of us and promote her government’s agenda. Committee of the Whole is to take the place of a committee meeting. At committee meetings we call witnesses to give us answers, not to spout government rhetoric and political talking points. Yet we did not receive a single answer to a question on Bill C-30. For 95 minutes, colleagues, we heard the finance minister talk about everything from fossil fuel subsidies, to mandatory reporting on climate-related financial risk, to dental care and housing benefits.

Yet, when I asked how Bill C-30 would help slow spending in the economy — as the Governor of the Bank of Canada noted is necessary — I was told that we have the lowest budget in the G7. When I asked whether the Prime Minister was beginning to think about monetary policy, I was schooled about the independence of the Bank of Canada.

When I posted the video of my questions along with the minister’s non-responses to social media, people were outraged. I will read a few quotes.

Brian said, “A grade 3 student would give more concise answers than the liberal government of Canada would.”

Melody said:

. . . thank you for your questions . . . and your amazing patience when it is obvious that she will never offer more than tiptoeing through the tulips. I’d be livid!

Roger wrote:

She likes to start with “let me be clear” but every answer is word salad. Her patronizing arrogance is sickening. She talks like she’s reading a 5-year-old a bed time story.

Bill wrote, “Asking a Liberal, any Liberal, a question, any question, is a complete waste of time.”

Sandy said, “So triple the carbon tax, that’s how compassionate they are.”

Charlie wrote, “She’s obviously not taking this seriously, just making a mockery of this and having zero respect for the inquiry.”

Colleagues, I could go on and on, but I have made my point. The Minister of Finance was not the least bit interested in answering questions, and that is unacceptable. If this is the way that ministers of the Crown treat Committee of the Whole, then our caucus is going to start opposing Committees of the Whole.

If we had held regular committee meetings on this bill, we would have had the opportunity to call other witnesses in order to get some answers. I am certain that one of those witnesses would have been the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who confirmed last week in his Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the government’s spending to alleviate the rising cost of living will actually increase the cost of living.

Some will argue that the impact will be minimal, but I would argue that it is inexcusable and irresponsible for the federal government to be working against the Bank of Canada’s efforts to bring inflation down. This, colleagues, is shameful. It’s no wonder the finance minister did not want to answer the question.

Colleagues, if Committee of the Whole is just a way for the government to dodge a proper examination of their legislation, then we will begin to insist that every bill go to full committee hearings regardless of the government’s time frame.

The fact is that this bill did not need to be rushed. The government had ample time to put this legislation together and table it. It is not complicated. Yet, as Senator Martin noted in Committee of the Whole, they appear to have just woken up to the fact that Canadian families are being pummelled by inflation.

We know this because the bill is accompanied by a Royal Recommendation. A Royal Recommendation is required when a bill authorizes new charges that were not anticipated in the estimates.

But consider that the Main Estimates were tabled on March 1 — the same month that inflation hit 6.7%. Supplementary Estimates (A) were tabled on June 7 — the same month that inflation hit 8.1%. Yet neither contained any mention of this spending.

Inflation did not just show up on our doorstep one morning, colleagues. There was ample time for the government to anticipate the need for this bill and include the allocation in the estimates. But apparently, even as inflation was ramping up, the government was asleep at the wheel.

Senators, why is it that this government cannot get legislation to us within a decent time frame even when the bill has unanimous support in the House of Commons? It was tabled in the other place on September 20, and then it took them the next three sitting weeks to get an uncontested bill over here. Let me repeat that, colleagues: An uncontested bill took three weeks to get over here. If there was ever a government that is unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, it is this NDP-Liberal government.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Former Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz noted at the recent Global Business Forum in Banff that Canada is a chronic underachiever — a condition caused by poor political decisions and the failure to address unresolved issues.

The problems that he listed were the following: “a political quagmire that requires a crisis to make decisions,” “layers of regulation,” “permit and consultation that take ages to complete,” and the fact that “Canada is one of the most highly taxed economies on earth . . . .”

That is why we find ourselves here tonight, forced to fly back early to deal with this bill. It once again comes down to this government’s never-ending incompetence.

Colleagues, the other thing you need to realize about this bill is that it doesn’t help people as much as the government makes it sound like it does. It’s not that people won’t appreciate receiving the help — they will. But the way the government likes to strut and gloat like they are being the hero by introducing this bill is misleading.

For starters, you need to understand that this money is only going to go to these who would normally receive the GST credit benefit. Numerous senators noted during Committee of the Whole that this doesn’t include anyone who does not file an income tax return.

Secondly, the government likes to give the impression that this money is largely going to help single moms with small children. In reality, out of the 11.6 million cheques that will be sent out, only 1.3 million will go to households with children, and less than half of that will go to single-parent homes. The other 10.3 million cheques will go to households with no children.

Thirdly, as Statistics Canada has pointed out in the past:

Since the economic well-being of an individual also depends on family income rather than just personal income, those who qualify for the GST credit are not necessarily disadvantaged. An example would be a young adult living with parents and working part time at a low-paying job. . . . the majority of recipients . . . are from multiple-earner families or those with more than one recipient (for instance, a child and another relative of the major income recipient living in the same family).

In other words, senators, there is no surgical precision in the deployment of this $2.5 billion.

The fourth thing I would point out is that this program was designed to be a tax rebate of GST expenses, not an inflation-fighting tool. This means that the lowest earners will not necessarily receive the higher amounts.

The way the program is designed, an eligible adult will receive a tax credit of $306 plus $161 for every qualified child under 19. If you’re married, you and your spouse each receive $306 plus the $161 for your child. This comes to $773, half of which is $386.50, which is the benefit they will be eligible for under Bill C-30.

If you’re a single parent, the calculation is the same because there is an “equivalent to spouse” amount for single parents where they receive two times the base credit. However, if you are among the 9 million recipients who are single with no children, then you receive the base amount of $306, but if you earn more than $9,900 a year, you will receive 2% of every dollar earned over and above that amount, up to a maximum of an additional $161.

What this means in practice is that a single person earning just under $10,000 a year will receive $154 under this bill, whereas a single person earning twice that amount will receive $234, which is 52% more.

Colleagues, my point is not only that these payments are small but that they are inequitable. Although this bill is supposed to help those most in need, in many cases those with the greatest need will actually receive less than those who earn twice as much as they do.

For a GST rebate, the program makes sense because if you have more money, then you spend more on GST in a year, but for a measure which is supposed to provide targeted tax relief to those who need it the most, it is a joke.

To make it practical, consider this: A single mother with a $30,000 net income will receive an additional $2.10 per day for six months, for a total of $386.50. However, over the same period, the purchasing power of this single mother’s income will have been reduced by more than $1,000 due to “JustinFlation,” or about $5.43 per day. While the NDP-Liberal government is presiding over the highest inflation hike in 40 years which takes more than $5 a day from a single mom, their solution is to offer $2 a day and pretend to be heroes.

Colleagues, let me be clear that no one is suggesting the government should “compensate every single Canadian” for the rising cost of living, to use the finance minister’s words. We cannot spend our way out of this mess as the Liberals always like to do. We are asking the government to stop raising taxes on Canadian families and use their inflation tax windfall to reduce taxes rather than blowing it out the door in new spending. If we want to avoid a full-blown recession, we need to be fiscally prudent, not careless.

We do not have to look far to see what will happen if the Trudeau government is not careful. The United Kingdom is learning the hard way that the markets will punish a government that does not pay attention to its balance sheet. This could have lasting effects.

As Mr. Torsten Bell from the U.K.’s Resolution Foundation told Politico:

The big picture in a world where interest rates are rising and inflation is high, is that you don’t want to be seen as the one country that everyone decides is a bad bet.

Showing how serious you are is important. If we are really arguing that our growth strategy is to borrow lots more and then that will pay for itself then they [the markets] don’t believe that.

And as Royce Mendes, head of macro strategy at Desjardins Group, told Global News in October:

It’s more important than it has been in many, many years for the federal government to reassure (investors) that it is nowhere close to following the U.K.’s path.

Let’s hope our government is paying attention, colleagues, and will not repeat the British mistakes.

In closing, let me say this: When the Minister of Finance was here in this chamber to give non-answers to questions about this bill, she said, “Canadians are smart . . . .”

On that point, I am in full agreement with the minister as well. Canadians are smart. I believe they will see through this nonsense of ratcheting up costs for consumers and then swooping in, pretending to be the hero by tossing back a morsel here and there. Canadians are smarter than this. And, colleagues, they are going to show this government just how smart they are in the next general election.

Thank you.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Plett. I have the same question for you that I asked Senator Bellemare, but whereas I asked Senator Bellemare a question out of genuine interest in the economic model she was proposing, I am befuddled by your explanation of how the economics work in the model you have put forward. Your starting point is that federal government spending is out of control and therefore unsustainable, and that it is this same spending that has added “fuel,” to use your words, to inflationary pressure essentially through what they call expansionary fiscal policy. Your solution, then, is to reduce the GST by a few percentage points, but that is expansionary fiscal policy.

While I haven’t done the detailed numbers, the back-of-the-envelope calculation in my head suggests to me that a reduction in GST of a few percentage points for everyone will be much larger than the cost of Bill C-30. Therefore, that policy would be an even more expansionary fiscal policy than what we are considering in this bill. It would also, by the way, exacerbate what you claim to be a problem of fiscal unsustainability.

Then there is the magical thinking that by reducing the GST — and increasing expansionary fiscal policy and adding to inflationary pressure — that reduction will allow the Bank of Canada to be less strict and harsh on increasing interest rates. That’s what we call fiscal dominance, where the fiscal policy of being irresponsible by cutting GST puts more pressure on the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates. Since you brought up the U.K. example, that is exactly what is happening in the U.K.

You are proposing, essentially, a policy of increasing expansionary policy, which will push up interest rates and inflation more than it does currently. You are creating pressures for the Bank of Canada, to the extent that this is an unsustainable fiscal policy, to increase interest rates more. I would add that reducing GST is a very difficult policy to unwind. You know that very well because it was under a previous Conservative government that reduced GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, which is where we are today.

My question to you, Senator Plett, is: What economics textbooks are you consulting?

Hon. Clément Gignac: Senator Plett, I wanted to mention to you that I share your frustration regarding the conduct of monetary policy in Canada. I think the Bank of Canada slept on the switch before removing liquidity, and we have a significant problem. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada recognized that.

I also share your concern — and I expressed that yesterday — that a lot of poor people who are on social assistance do not file income tax. This morning at the National Finance Committee, chaired by our friend and colleague Senator Percy Mockler, we gave a hard time and some suggestions to the Canada Revenue Agency to do that.

My question is this: Regarding your proposal to reduce the goods and services tax, or GST, Canada leads the G7 in terms of economic growth this year with 3.2%, and next year, it expects to lead the G7 at 1.7%. To continue on the angle of Senator Woo’s, the GST reduction will help stimulate the economy and will help the people who are rich compared to the poor. Personally, I would call that the kick-the-can inflation policy because in the short-term, yes, you are reducing the inflation rate — no doubt about that — but everyone knows that the government will restore the GST to the previous level after that. For me, it just postpones the problem.

I listened to your answer to Senator Woo and I know you’re not here to — we talked about the bill — but nonetheless, this GST reduction is not exactly the best idea at the current stage of the economy because we have a significant risk to increase the GST at the time that the economy cools significantly as the global economic slowdown confirms.