44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 5, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for always fighting for Canadians and trying to get them the help they need. Obviously, doubling the GST rebate is something he has been advocating for.
He talked about dental care. He talked about really important values around helping people when they need help. We, as New Democrats, want a health care system that is head to toe, universal health care. With respect to mental health, we know that a lot of our emergency rooms right now and doctors' offices are full of people who need help with mental health. In fact, five million Canadians cannot even get access to a doctor and they are waiting for supports around mental health. The Liberal government made a $4.5-billion promise to Canadians so they can access mental health services, but it has not even rolled it out.
We know that over $50 billion is spent each year on mental health in the health care system. It is draining our health care system. There has been $6 billion in lost productivity. Does my colleague agree that mental health needs to be a top priority so that we can have a true universal health care system?
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's work on mental health has been critical. We should do it for the right reasons, to start with.
Second, I will give economic reasons. Right now, countries are moving toward stealing some of Canada's infrastructure, which we have to compete to gain jobs and investments, through our health care system. Dental is now considered an asset, but the next one is going to be mental health. We have heard enough testimony through our industry committee right now that Canadians are being poached with online services and investment. If we want to keep them in our country as Canadian workers, then we need to invest in that right now. It would work really well.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Vancouver Kingsway, to bring their voices to this place, to reflect their experiences and to express how we can, in this House, best support them and their families and the businesses that operate in the wonderful riding that I am fortunate to represent.
Tonight, I rise to speak on Bill C-30, called the cost of living relief act, no. 1. Bill C-30 amends the Income Tax Act to double the goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax credit for six months, effectively increasing the maximum annual GST/HST credit amounts by 50% for the 2022-23 benefit year. What that means is that doubling the GST credit would provide about $2.5 billion in additional targeted support immediately to roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.
To give an example of the impact of this, single Canadians without children would receive up to an extra $234 and couples with two children up to an extra $467 this year. Seniors would receive an extra $225 on average immediately. I want to stop at this point to say that this is an interim stopgap measure. By no means will this measure adjust or improve the systemic problems of the Canadian economy or address the long-standing inequities that exist along with the poor distribution of wealth in this country. In fact, the distribution of wealth has gotten worse over the decades, as wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and more and more people struggle. That has been the unmistakable, undeniable trajectory of how wealth and income have been distributed in this country over the last 40 years.
Given the horrible impacts of very unusually high inflation, New Democrats have been pushing for urgent action to address Canada's cost of living crisis for many months. We did not just start this yesterday. We identified this problem and have been advocating, working hard and fighting for Canadians in this place for the last six months.
If the Liberals and Conservatives had supported the NDP's call last May to double the GST credit, which is when we did that in this House, eligible Canadians could have received up to $467 before the start of the summer. This money would already be in Canadians' hands if the two major parties in the House had the same commitment to working people and marginalized Canadians that the NDP has in this country. However, it is the fact that not six months ago both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against the very proposal before the House today to provide this essential relief to Canadians.
New Democrats are now proposing that all parties work together to fast-track Bill C-30 through Parliament to ensure that people receive their increased GST rebate as soon as possible. Last week, Canadians were told by the Conservatives that they will have to wait even longer for relief, because the Conservatives refused to work evenings to get this urgently needed support out the door and, again, opposed the NDP's offer to work on an expeditious basis because we recognize the urgency of the problem today.
New Democrats are delivering real results for Canadians beyond this. The Canadian dental benefit will deliver up to $1,300 to parents with children under 12 who do not have access to dental insurance. The top-up to the Canada housing benefit, again proposed by the NDP in the last election platform will deliver a $500 payment to 1.8 million renters who are struggling so mightily with the cost of housing. This more than doubles the government's original commitment reaching twice as many Canadians as originally promised. Of course, doubling the GST credit will provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted support, again, to some of the poorest and most needy Canadians in our country from coast to coast to coast.
Taken together, the result of these three NDP-driven proposals would mean that a family of two will receive between $3,000 and $4,000 due to NDP advocacy and hard work in this Parliament. That is the result of the NDP working for Canadians.
By way of background, the GST tax credit would help offset the financial impact of the GST for low- and modest-income people and families. That is the whole purpose of it. The credit is paid quarterly, in January, April, July and December, with benefit years beginning in July. The total annual value of this credit depends on family size and income. For the 2022-23 benefit year, eligible people can receive up to $467 for single people without children, $612 for married or common-law couples, $612 for single parents, plus $161 for each child under the age of 19.
I want to pause for a moment, because I have heard people in the House, mainly on the Conservative side, who have scoffed at the amount of money we are talking about here. They have said that this is not enough money, that these are crumbs and that this is an insufficient amount of money. I can tell them that to someone who is trying to live on $20,000 a year or $25,000 a year or $30,000 a year, $500 makes a big difference. I have said it before and I am going to say it again. It is easy for MPs, who make $185,000 a year minimum, to stand in this House, like the Conservatives have done, and tell Canadians that $500 does not mean much to them. That might mean a child's hockey; that might mean a child's school lunches; that might mean clothing for children for a year. That is what $500 means to people who are earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, and that is meaningful.
The GST credit is indexed for inflation on an annual basis using CPI index data, but of course, for this year, for the July 2022 to June 2023 benefit year, the value of that GST credit grew by only 2.4%, because it was based on the CPI from 2020 to 2021. Because those increases are based on the inflation rate from the prior year, the current GST credit does not reflect the unusually high inflation that Canadians are experiencing now. Depending on where they live, it is somewhere between 7% and 9%. That is why this money urgently needs to get into the pockets of these needy Canadians as soon as possible, and the NDP will work hard to do that.
I want to pause for a moment to speak a bit about why we are where we are, because there are different views on that in the House. Why are we experiencing inflation of 8% or 9%? New Democrats believe that this is inflation driven by prices, and of course the data and empirical evidence support that. This is not driven by wages. Wages have not gone up 8%. This is not driven by anything other than prices at the gas pump, in grocery stores and in insurance bills issued by companies in this country.
The other thing is that the Conservatives like to pretend that the inflation was caused by the deficit. That may play some role, but everybody who has been paying attention knows that when prices started to rise in this country, it started with the beginning of the COVID pandemic in 2020, when supply chains began to be interrupted around the world. Then we had the Ukraine-Russia war, which of course interfered with all sorts of supply chains and energy resources, and now corporations are clearly using the cover of this to drastically increase their profits and prices, taking advantage of the current situation. Whether it is the so-called FIRE industry, the finance, insurance and real estate industry, the oil and gas sector or major grocery stores, the data from economists is clear. Their profits, not their revenue, but their profits, are at dramatically higher levels.
In the case of the FIRE industry, it is up 24%. Nobody earning wages has received 24% more income. What would justify a 24% price increase? Oil and gas companies in this country are reporting record profits. They have never made more money. Then there are the financial institutions and grocery stores. Every Canadian who walks into a grocery store can see what is happening with prices.
The answer here is not to blame workers; it is not to attack politically. The approach here is to attack the source of the problem, and that means making corporations pay for their excess profits so that the money can to go to the government and it can use that money productively for Canadians, for things like dental care and other programs that will make such a huge difference to Canadians' lives.
1510 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as somebody who used to receive GST cheques, I understand how important it is to get that relief back. It is money that people paid and should get back, especially when they are below a certain income threshold.
It is a one-time payment, though. While getting people's money back into their hands is always a good principle, I wonder if the NDP would support increasing the GST payments in the longer term, so that rather than making a one-time payment, it would increase the amount of the GST rebates that people are receiving.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, not only for sharing his experience but also for that thoughtful question.
When the GST was first proposed in this country, by Conservatives and Liberals, the New Democrats opposed it, because it is a regressive tax. By definition, the 7% tax, as it was at the time, applied to everybody. When a young single mother making $20,000 a year pays the same tax in a store as a billionaire walking into the same store and buying the same object, it is clearly regressive, so bringing in a tax credit was an attempt to try to inject some progressivity back into the tax.
In theory, the suggestion by my hon. colleague is a good one. We should be injecting progressivity into our tax system, so that the amount of money being paid in tax goes up commensurate with the amount of income being made.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments, particularly on the notion of regressive taxation, whereby a tax applied to somebody earning $20,000 a year is a bigger hit than the same tax applied to somebody who is earning $200,000 a year.
However, I want to ask the hon. member to reverse that and talk about tax cuts that would affect individuals. If we follow the Conservative line and cut tax, which they have tried to do in the past, and we look at the relative income and the relative impact on people, who would benefit the most on a personal income tax basis from across-the-board tax cuts?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of being in the House for a period of time is that I have gotten to see different approaches to government.
I remember the Conservatives, when they were in power, being addicted to boutique tax cuts, which were essentially vote buying. They would appeal to a certain group of people and give them a tax cut to try to win their support. In my opinion, that is not the basis for sound tax policy.
The basis for sound taxes in any modern democracy should be based on a progressive system. I noticed that the Conservatives are talking a lot about the current economic system. They never talk about the massive profits made by large corporations. They never talk about the $30 billion that was left on the table last year in uncollected taxes from profitable corporations. What they do talk about is tax cuts, which benefit the rich and the wealthy. That is not an approach that could sustain a country like Canada, and it is unfair.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated that this bill and two others have measures to help people face inflation. That is fine. However, there may be other solutions available.
One of the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois was to enlist experienced workers. We know that some people who retire may be reluctant to return to the labour market to help out because the little income they would earn per year would be taxed. The Bloc proposed creating a tax credit for these people so this additional income would not be taxed. In addition to helping them cope with inflation, it could help alleviate the labour shortage.
Does my colleague agree with this proposal?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that creative solution. She is absolutely right that Canada is facing a labour shortage that is really unprecedented. As health critic I see this most acutely in the health care sector, where across this country, in every profession, we have a shortage of workers and they are facing a crisis.
Any measures and policies that are fair, that are targeted at getting people back in the workforce, and that encourage people to work are something we should be looking at. Any policy that discourages someone from entering the workforce is something that is unacceptable and should be changed.
I am happy to look at any proposal that the Bloc has in this regard.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-30, I want to look at what got us here today. When we look back at the history of the current government, which started in 2015, we see that there has not yet been a single budget that it has put forward that has been balanced. Every year, the government keeps borrowing more and more money. That is not to mention the carbon tax, which I will talk about later as well, and how much that is increasing the cost of everything that we produce.
I would like to tell a little story. Many times, when I am going to the airport, the cab driver will ask what I am going to the airport for. I will say I am going home, and they ask what I am doing here in Ottawa, so I say I am an MP. He puts a big smile on his face and he asks if I am a Liberal. I say no, that I am from Alberta, so I am a Conservative. He says, “Oh, the party that cuts and slashes.” I tell him that is one way of looking at it, but the way to really look at it is that we live within our means. I see a look on his face as though he is wondering what that is supposed to mean.
I explain it to him. Every year, if a person is driving a cab and makes $50,000 a year, for instance, but spends $80,000, how long are they going to survive financially, with borrowing or spending over $30,000? He says, “Well, not very long.” I say that is actually what the government is doing, year after year after year. I can see this look on his face that says, “This is actually going to have an impact on me.” Unfortunately, though, he makes another little smirk to say that it is okay, and that because government finances do not work the same as personal finances, it is okay for the government to borrow because it is not going to have an effect on us. Canadians now are realizing the effect of this borrowing year after year after year.
I know the government will talk about how, during COVID, it had to borrow so much money to do this. However, out of all the billions that the government borrowed, half of that actually went to COVID measures, and the other half went to various programs that the government had initiated. Therefore, there is quite a disconnect in the information that the Liberals talk about.
The next thing is that with the inflation rate that we have, it is hard to believe that the Liberals say wonderful catchphrases such as that inflation is a global phenomenon. That is like saying, “Where did this come from? We have no idea. It is just shocking.” I can understand that, when we have a Prime Minister who says he does not think about the financial program here, that he does not even think about monetary policy. That is what we get from a Prime Minister who is trying to run a country, so it is no surprise that our inflation rate is growing year after year after year.
Now, Canadians are looking for a reprieve. What is there to offer? It is double the GST back. Yes, it is a one-time payment that is going to help families, but really the cost of everything is escalating. It is unbelievable how families are not able to survive at this rate.
It is not only families. I think about the seniors I have spoken about. So many of them come to me and say, “What can we do? We had money in the bank. We had money in investments and they are just continually dropping. How can we survive?” They tell me that they planned into their eighties and nineties with no problems, but have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last while because of the inflationary prices that are going on to this day.
It is devastating what we are doing to Canadians here, and it is shameful what the Liberals have done to this country. That is what I am here to talk about the most: how they are not here to help Canadians. They love catchphrases. There is day care for $10 a day. It is great for young families; it is doing nothing for seniors, though. That is one of the things I really need to talk about.
I would like to thank the House for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-30.
787 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:20:20 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:20, pursuant to order made on Monday, October 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:21:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Monday, October 3, the division stands deferred until Thursday, October 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt two motions, of which this is the first. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, later today, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, at the second reading stage, that during the debate, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and when no Member rises to speak, or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned, the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:22:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the second request for unanimous consent. I move:
That, notwithstanding paragraph (e) of the order made Monday, May 2, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit to Parliament a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be no later than Friday, February 17, 2023, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:23:14 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:23:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I suspect if you were to canvas the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it the appropriate time to begin Private Members' Business.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/5/22 6:23:44 p.m.
- Watch
I believe we are there anyway, so I thank the member for that intervention.
It being 6:23 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss Bill C‑253, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, including the Auditor General Act. This bill seeks to ensure that the Auditor General of Canada and the auditor for the Bank of Canada have access to the Bank of Canada's operations.
Basically, as the member for Carleton and others have suggested, this means that the Auditor General could conduct an audit of the money spent during the pandemic, for example, which actually came from money printing by the Bank of Canada. Essentially, the idea is to examine and evaluate Canadian monetary policy through an audit by the Auditor General.
Since the Bloc Québécois will always respect Canadian institutions as long as Quebec is part of Canada, it should come as no surprise that we believe that the Bank of Canada should be totally independent.
In my speech, I would like to add some qualifications to the Conservative Party's comments and also recall the importance of the Bank of Canada's independence.
First, I would like to clarify some of the comments made by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the sponsor of the bill. He said that the Bank of Canada is exempt from the Auditor General's oversight. I would like to qualify that. The Auditor General can review the bank's operations and records related to its roles as the government's fiscal agent, advisor on public debt management, and manager of the exchange fund account.
I will start by saying that the Auditor General has access to a study on the structure of the Bank of Canada, the review of audits, certain records and so on. It is not the Auditor General's role to assess the quality of a policy, let alone the quality of monetary policy. It is very important to make that clear.
Moreover, control measures are already in place for the Bank of Canada. I would like to list a few of them. Under the Bank of Canada Act, once a year, two independent firms are to audit the affairs of the bank simultaneously. The Minister of Finance has the authority to enlarge or extend the scope of the audit and to request special audits and reports.
The point is, the Bank of Canada already has an accountability process; it is accountable to the government. The Bank of Canada also reports to the committee, and it is up to the committee to determine whether certain monetary policies are appropriate.
I happened to be there when the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. Committees can call Bank of Canada governors and deputy governors to appear. They can review the bank's books and make recommendations in that respect. Committees can oversee internal and external audits. Lastly, they can review the adequacy of the bank's risk management, internal control and governance framework and its information communication.
Clearly, the Bank of Canada already has an accountability process.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle also suggested we should follow the example of our Commonwealth partners, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.
Taking a look at what is done in some of those countries, we note that the auditor general of New Zealand can indeed audit the central bank. However, the AG's role is to ensure that the financial statements are accurate and free of any errors. It is explicitly stated in the constraints placed on the auditor general that he or she cannot comment on the efficiency of the central bank.
In Australia, the auditor general's objectives are to obtain reasonable assurances that the financial statements taken as a whole are free from significant anomalies, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report to confirm that.
Once again, in these countries, whose example we should supposedly follow, the auditor general has no mandate to audit monetary policy.
Things are a bit more complicated in the United Kingdom. We recognize that. The auditor general examines whether the Bank of England has a sufficiently ambitious strategy to develop appropriate efficient and cost-effective central services to help the bank deliver change and control costs.
Once again, there is agreement that the auditor general does not make findings about the strategic objectives of the central bank. Consequently, an audit of a monetary policy would not be acceptable in any of these Commonwealth countries. There is no mention of issuing an opinion or criticizing a monetary policy. In short, in these three countries, the auditor general can audit the administrative integrity of the central bank, but not the effectiveness of its monetary policy.
The Bloc Québécois does not oppose the idea of increasing accountability. On the contrary, it is something we frequently ask for and we are quite in favour of the idea of asking the central bank good questions especially at committee. However, the Bloc is opposed to this bill because it does not use the right means to attain its objective, which is to evaluate a monetary policy by having the Auditor General conduct an audit. That is not her function, nor is it the place for her to carry it out.
I would now like to focus on the importance of the central bank's independence. I would never venture an opinion on monetary policy even if I were an economist. It is a very complex exercise that must be very nuanced. That is also the case for the independence of central banks. I would remind members that a central bank uses monetary policy to help establish price levels, for example. It has an impact on the level of employment in an economy. The central bank has a major impact on our economy.
That said, the medium- and long-term stability objectives of a central bank are completely different from the objectives of a government that is elected for a maximum of four years. A government's objectives are short-term, in some cases more than others. Long-term stability is a different objective, and that is why a central bank must be completely independent from a government. The two have different objectives. One is aiming for long-term economic stability, while the other is likely to develop a budgetary policy that is shorter term.
For example, when a central bank increases its key policy interest rate, that will affect the economy about 18 to 24 months later. I would remind members that we have a minority government with a potential lifespan of two more years. Therefore, at no time would the two objectives coincide. Developing a budgetary policy is completely different from developing a monetary policy, and that is why the central bank must remain independent. Without that independence, a government might choose a short-term monetary policy that is to its advantage, but that is not optimal in the long term.
Central bank independence falls within a wide spectrum. There are as many degrees of central bank independence as there are central banks. However, I would like to talk about the good practices developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says, “Central banks hold considerable power in their countries' economies [as we know]. While their mandates vary, they generally aim to create the conditions for economic and financial stability. Their most important tools are monetary policies, which are decisions about the value of money. These include decisions about the amount of money in the economy and ways to keep inflation stable.”
We agree that the central bank plays a tremendous role in keeping inflation stable and we agree that inflation is too high at the moment. The central bank set out to keep inflation at 2% and it had and agreement with the government on that. However, we know that the causes of inflation are much more complex than a monetary policy. In this case, there is indeed a shortage of labour, materials and semi-conductors. There are global supply chain problems. No central bank has managed to truly address the problem of inflation.
In conclusion, I would like to cite my favourite economist, in other words my father. He says that a monetary policy is as complex as medicine. Economists are a bit like doctors. The difference is that doctors have seven billion patients to test a drug or new method on, while economists have just one economy.
The central bank may make mistakes. It is the role of committees to look at its mistakes and ask questions. It is not for the Auditor General to do that. Independent institutions make for a healthy democracy.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
