44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 17, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to represent the good people of Cumberland—Colchester.
I thank the Minister of Health for his speech, as he is always very interesting. Reflecting a bit on the minister's own language, the number in Bill C-31 for rental relief and the dental program is $10 billion, which would be funded by the federal government. I think that is a big number. Perhaps I will come back to that.
The deputy minister of finance talked about throwing stones in the lake, and I would suggest that we are almost throwing boulders into a teacup, which is, of course, going to overflow, unlike what she would have Canadians believe.
That being said, this bill is split into two parts. Let us speak about the rental relief part of the bill. My hon. colleague from Mirabel spoke about how Quebeckers will be left behind. It is shameful, saddening, disheartening and inconceivable that the average monthly rent in Canada is more than $2,000. The Liberal government's rental relief, which the Minister of Health did not speak of much, would give people a one-time payment of $500. We know that rental prices are up 4.3% since August and 15.4% over a year, to an average of $2,043 per month. That information is from Rentals.ca and Bullpen Research and Consulting.
We also know that all rental property costs are up 21.9% since April of 2021. Of course, this is due to increased demand and interest rates, which we know are fuelled by the Liberal government's inflationary fire, upon which we all know it wants to continue to pour more gasoline. Sadly, in Nova Scotia, my home province, the average rental cost per month for all property types is $2,453, which is a shocking amount of money for a place to live. In Ontario, it is slightly less at $2,451. A condo or apartment in Toronto is, on average, $2,855.
When I look at those numbers, it is not that $500 is an insignificant amount of money. It is certainly an amount of money one would not pass by, but it is not significant with helping people who are having difficulty with housing. During the constituency week last week, when I asked people in my own constituency about receiving that $500, the majority of people said it was not worth it. They wondered why the government would even bother, as it might cover one week out of 52 weeks when we look at the ballooning cost of housing.
Why would we not consider directing funds to things that really affect the sustainability of every household in this country? As we all know, and if we do not we are sadly living under a rock, groceries are up at least 10%. Let me expand a little on that. Fruit is up 13.2%. Eggs are up 10.9%. Bread is up 17.6%. Here is a shocker: Pasta is up 32.4%. Those are shocking increases that translate into a family of four having to spend $1,200 more to feed itself over last year. If we are giving people a one-time payment of $500, it seems like shockingly little, yet this program, as touted by the Prime Minister, is going to cost about $900 million.
We all know, very clearly, that the government has added more debt for Canadians than all previous governments combined in 148 years. I know the government is going to talk about the terribly high cost of COVID, but on this side of the House, we all know that this really is not forming a significant part of the massive amount of burdensome debt that is going to be left to my children, and my grandchildren as well, which makes me very sad.
We also know that the other side of the House has had significant failures on the housing file. We now know that people are spending over 50% of their cheques on housing, up from 32%, and we have the fewest houses per-capita in the G7. We also know that the average housing price in Canada has doubled.
We are talking about creating another federally administered program from a government that has multiple failures. For example, Canadians are having trouble getting a simple passport.
I can remember getting my first passport in the early 1990s. At that point, it seemed really quite simple. People were able to get a form that, as it was not downloaded then. I think they went to the post office. They put their names on it. They had several people in the community as guarantors. Then they would put it in the mail and the passports came back in a timely fashion.
Now, shockingly, the constituency assistants in my offices in Truro and Amherst spend untold hours advocating on behalf of the great citizens of Cumberland—Colchester to simply get a passport. They are now beginning to emerge from this pandemic and they want to go somewhere. It is shocking. It is as if it could not have been foreseen, that as life returned to normal and we learned to lived with COVID that people would want to go and do something but their passports were running out.
I find it just inconceivable that my office and the offices of all my colleagues have been spending such tremendous amounts of time on something as simple as a passport, and now we are going to entrust the government with another federal program. It is like asking why the government does not federally administer a program for all Canadians. That makes no sense when we cannot even get people a passport.
Two other issues that I think really underline the ridiculous nature therein are with respect to the immigration file.
I met with a gentleman at my office during constituency week. He has been living in Canada since 2011. He entered with a BSc and an MBA. Since being in Canada, he has obtained an MSc as well. This man has been waiting five years for his permanent residency. It is nonsense. He has been here, as I mentioned, for 10 years, working in Canada, functioning as a Canadian citizen. All of his paperwork is in. He pays taxes and he goes to work every day. Why does it take such an inordinate amount of time?
Again, I would suggest that all of my colleagues in the House are really able to fully realize that this is not a fallacy. It is the sad reality that people are waiting years to become permanent residences and citizens of a country in which they are actually functioning as citizens already. They are following the laws, paying their taxes, working and are contributing to the great country which we all have the privilege of calling home.
When I look at those things, how can we entrust the government to administer any other programs?
Finally, as we know very clearly, hurricane Fiona has been devastating to Atlantic Canada, specifically to Cumberland—Colchester. The way in which that support is rolling out for Atlantic Canadians and the great people who live in my riding is appalling. There does not appear to be rhyme or reason. There appears to be words attached to the amount of funding that will be rolled out, however, there does not appear, as we are sadly reminded daily, to be any plan behind how to get people that funding.
Trees are lying everywhere, and I am not talking about some alder bushes that have fallen over, which can be snipped with a good pair of clippers. These are big trees, and in the order of 30 or 40 trees. The government has promised money for these people to get their lives back together and, sadly, it does not have a program to roll it out. Again, I would suggest that asking the government to be a part of rolling out another federal program is really not the way in which we would like to see things proceed.
We now know that Canadians are paying more in taxes than in housing, transport, food and clothing combined. We are taxed, and I do not even know where it is, whether it is above my nose or eyes. We are paying significant taxes, and people are feeling this cost of living crisis. People are not able to afford to pay more. As we all know, winter is coming, which may sound like a bit of a cliché, as it always does. People are now worried about putting oil in their oil barrel. People in Cumberland—Colchester, who often live in single-family dwellings, are very much dependent on fossil fuels, and we know this is a concern for them. We also know they are worried about feeding their families, and adding more programs does not seem to make any sense.
Also, as mentioned in the House this morning, there is the upcoming payroll tax increases and the tax on tax, the dreaded tax of all, the tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians are at their breaking point, and the government continues to pile on more and more taxes on the backs of Canadians, which we know is an untenable position. People cannot afford this. People do not want to continue doing this.
As we also heard, we know that the government is often wanting to give with the left hand and take with the right, which is what we are seeing with the increased payroll taxes that are going to roll out in January. Then the tripling of the carbon tax is going to be rolled out against the best wishes of many. Therefore, we see the giving of $500 and the taking away of much more. The government is taking money in the form of payroll taxes and putting it into general revenues, which really does not make a whole heck of a lot of sense.
The second part of Bill C-31 is the proposed dental benefit act.
As I mentioned, the finance minister said, “This is like throwing a stone in the lake — the lake doesn't flood.” Of course, when we continue to add billions of dollars, it is like throwing boulders in a lake, which eventually we know will raise the level and could possibly overflow depending on the size of the lake. If we put a boulder in a mud puddle, we know that will take up all of the space.
What is the evidence with respect to this? I would like to think that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is a good source of information. The estimate is that it is going to cost $9 billion over five years. There is some other strange math that perhaps could be clarified, but it appears that year one is going to cost in and of itself $5.3 billion for another federally administer debacle.
What does the Canadian Dental Association have to say about it? Arguably, it speaks for many dental professionals in the country. It asks whether it would not be better to bolster existing and underfunded provincial and territorial plans as opposed to attempting to create another system altogether. As we heard, we know very clearly that at least 11 of our 13 jurisdictions have the ability to fund, at least in part, dental care for those in the greatest need. If that is the truth, which I believe it is from the research, it would make more sense and behoove us all not to create an entire other system, but, as the Canadian Dental Association would say, to bolster the existing and underfunded programs.
In Nova Scotia, for instance, there is a program that is fairly comprehensive for children under age 14. It costs $11 million per year. When we look at that, the federal program is for children under the age of 12, but perhaps Nova Scotia might have fewer children per capita than other jurisdictions. Just doing some spitball math, if there are a million children under 14 in Nova Scotia and averaging it out to the rest of the country, that would be $3.4 billion per year, certainly not an insignificant amount.
We believe that the CRA is going to administer this part of the program. When we look at these things, I do not think that anybody who pays taxes in the country would believe that the CRA will create a simple administration for this program. I fail to believe that. We know how complicated even filling out a simple tax return is, and that is going to be difficult.
We also understand that there could be claims adjudication in this. Early on in this part of the bill, it says it is going to be $650 a year with no strings attached, no questions asked, how much the fees are, etc. I do not know if we can keep the rest, but there is a thinly veiled threat that if people are dishonest, they will have to pay it back and there will be a fine.
We know that dentists' fees vary widely in the province of Nova Scotia and across the country. We know that in Nova Scotia a checkup and cleaning, for instance, could be between $90 and $240. We know that in Nova Scotia a filling could cost from $70 up to $400. Therefore, we know there are significant difficulties associated with that.
We also know, as I previously said, that multiple jurisdictions already have significant dental coverage in a universal sense. Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have more complete coverage for first nations families as well. We know there is additional coverage for other families that are receiving financial assistance in places such as New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Will the provinces be expected to continue the programs they have? I have some concern about what is in the bill that would suggest that the provinces that have programs will be expected to continue them, which really does not appear to be fair and equitable.
What do we really need to have happen? We need to understand very clearly that the funding for health transfers needs to be shored up across Canada. We hear day after day from folks who do not have access to primary care. We hear of the tremendous and insane backlogs that have been created by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is going to require significant effort and funding.
We know that the government has also not yet committed to funding the Canada mental health transfer. On page 75 of the Liberal platform, $250 million were committed and then in budget 2022, another $625 million, which, at another point, appears to equate to $4.5 billion over five years. I do not think this is a member in the House who would not agree that mental health is a significant, ongoing and burgeoning difficulty for the entire country, every province and territory, towns, small and large. The government has yet to commit to funding the Canada mental health transfer. As well, there has not been significant consultation with the premiers of the provinces and territories with respect to this bill. We believe that is what the provincial and territorial ministers of health would want.
We also know the government continues to run a significant deficit and debt. I have spoken previously and multiple times about the terrible debt burden the government is leaving future generations. I look at it like this to try to make sense of it: If I have a minivan and continue to make payments on it, why would I buy another vehicle? I do not understand that. If I cannot finish paying for the one I have, why would I want something else? I would just be adding to it. Those are wishes and desires. From that perspective, it just does not seem to make any sense.
The Minister of Health also spoke about a speedy passage, and I would respectfully disagree with the minister. We know the speedy passage is related to the Liberal-NDP coalition and the demands made to keep the government afloat. That is not a reason, in any way, shape or form, to impede debate on such significant legislation in terms of the cost of the legislation.
As we said, this is $10 billion. Again, I will use the minister's own parlance and say, here is a number: more than $10 billion. That is without the hiccups and pitfalls we know happen with so many federal programs. Therefore, could it be $15 billion? Again, these are boulders we are throwing into a teacup.
I need to be clear that this is not a question of the importance of oral health. This is a question of responsible government, fiscal responsibility and timing. This is about partnerships with provinces. This is about federal oversight and heavy-handedness. This is about the federal administration of a program, which we know has failed multiple times. We know the government is a government that is great at making loud overtures, but we also know the government is not very good at following through on action. We also know it is great at spending money and not delivering much.
It has become very clear over the last several minutes there is no way I could possibly support Bill C-31 in its two separate parts, which are the rental relief program, for which I quoted the people of Cumberland—Colchester, who feel it is not worth it and ask why we would bother, and the significant costs and even perhaps the lack of support from the Canadian Dental Association with respect to the dental portion.
I hope that sheds some light on the very important difficulties associated with Bill C-31 and the need to debate it further on behalf of all Canadians.
3015 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, once again I want to mention to the hon. member that similar to Quebec, Alberta has a dental care program for children across the province. Again, as we have been pointing out, this is true across the country.
One thing I would note, as I disagree with the member's assessment of the way things are, is that Alberta pays an exorbitant amount into the equalization program. Quebec is generally a net receiver of that program, and I wonder if the member would recognize the fact that Alberta is often paying the bills for Quebec.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am talking about the provincial governments that are doing their job and those that are not. That is what federalism is all about. The provinces are given powers and told to handle housing and all the social programs. That means different provinces can make different choices.
Obviously, Quebec has made certain choices, and now it is being penalized for its success in this area. My colleague talked about equalization, and this is kind of the same thing. Alberta's performance on the environment and economic diversification is poor, and it is paying for it. That is the nature of federalism.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment today to wish all of my colleagues in the House of Commons a happy Thanksgiving. We have not been in this place since then, and I want to reach out to everyone and extend that greeting.
I want to note that I am certain that many of us, when we were in our constituencies last week, heard from our constituents that the price of food, the price of fuel and the cost of living in Canada is becoming untenable. It is becoming something that Canadians cannot handle. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to stand up and find ways to work together with other parties and other members to make life more affordable for Canadians. I am absolutely convinced that one of the ways we can do that is with dental care.
Our job here is to support those people who do not have the same things we have. It is to support people in Canada and around the world in meeting their human rights and needs. Therefore, it would be remiss of me, as an Albertan and an Alberta MP, to not take a moment here to deeply condemn the comments made by our very new Premier of Alberta.
I want to tell the House about people: people living in poverty; people who are houseless; people with disabilities; people living without drinking water; indigenous people in this country, particularly women and girls; the families and children who went to residential schools, and those children who lost their lives; BIPOC folks; LGBTQ2S+ and SOGI folks; members of the Jewish community; members of the Muslim community; and women in Iran, Afghanistan and Ukraine. These are the people the Conservative Premier of Alberta said were not as discriminated against as the unvaccinated in our province.
I want to add to that and say that we need to look at these lists of people who have suffered unbearably and not discount all of that to say that the people who have suffered the most are the people who chose not to take a free, safe, miraculous and scientifically proven vaccine. I spent much of last year in this place talking about how we needed to get vaccines to other places in the world that did not have access to them, but our premier, the Conservative Premier of Alberta, has discounted every other group that has suffered harm and suffered devastatingly during this pandemic. I would be remiss if I did not raise that in this place.
Today, we are talking about dental care, and this is another opportunity for me to point out that the Conservatives do not seem to have a clue at all. We are talking about dental care for children under 12 years of age. The Leader of the Opposition has had dental care for himself and his children for almost 20 years, and all members of the Conservative Party have a gold-plated dental package that allows them to take care of their teeth, their children's teeth and their spouse's teeth, yet they do not want that for every other person in Canada. My children will never not be able to get their teeth fixed because they have access to a dental program that allows them to get their teeth fixed. The idea that the Conservatives would not want that for every child in this country, the idea that the things they have and their children have are not things they would want children across this country to have, baffles me. I do not understand.
I walk around in my constituency, and I hope we all do as it is very important. Edmonton Strathcona is of course the most beautiful constituency in the country, but I hope we all walk around in our constituencies. I am hearing from folks across the board who are delighted with dental care. They are delighted this is finally happening. It was recommended in 1968, but it is finally happening because of the NDP.
Do the Conservatives not walk around in their ridings? Do they not talk to their constituents? Do they not understand what is there?
One of the other things I wanted to point out is that we are hearing in this place that this is not needed because there is a program already that helps low-income Canadians. In Alberta, one needs to make around $27,000 to be able to access some services. Basically, one needs to be living that close to the poverty line to be able to access just a few of those services.
If one does not believe children should have access to dental care and does not think it is important for the Canadian government to support that, is there an economic argument we can make? Can we explain to the Conservatives how much it costs when a child ends up in the emergency room because they cannot afford preventive dental care and how much more it costs later on when we do not do the basic dental care at the outset?
When Conservatives say not to worry because people have dental care, pharmacare and all of these things, it is not true. It is not true for the vast majority of Canadians, and they know that.
One other thing I wanted to bring up in my speech today is that I am so incredibly proud to be part of the New Democratic Party that has brought dental care forward to the House of Commons. My colleague before me from Timmins—James Bay mentioned just how incredible it is to be able to say we were able to push the Liberals, and I think he called them Teletubbies, and get them to do this work, and to hold our horses because there is more we can do. That is kind of what I want to talk about.
Dental care is great, but what else do we need? We need pharmacare. We need eye care. We need mental health supports in this country. As people struggle with COVID, the cost of living and all of these things, there is the desperate need—
1031 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have heard many members of the opposition speak on the legislation and they often say province X has this or province Y has that. By bringing forward this legislation, we would ensure that every child under the age of 12 in Canada, in every region of our country, has some dental benefits. It seems to me that point has been lost on the opposition.
The member referred to the uniqueness of Alberta, but the provinces all are different. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts on how important it is that children under the age of 12 from coast to coast to coast are provided this badly needed service.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for calling the member a Teletubby. I know it was meant in good fun.
In terms of the situation in Alberta, absolutely we need to make sure that all children in Alberta have access to dental care, but I think he is getting at the idea that, as a parliamentarian who loves Edmonton Strathcona, I want to make sure children in Nova Scotia, children in B.C. and children in Yukon, all of them, have access to the same dental care program, that they can all access dental care and that there are no gaps or holes that families and young children could fall through.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is interesting to me because I think what the member is basically saying is that we should leave this to the private sector, which brings me back to where I started with my comments on the Premier of Alberta.
I will say that, as a New Democrat, I strongly support universally accessible, publicly delivered health care that includes dental care, that includes pharmacare and that includes care for those who cannot afford to pay for it. I do not understand why the Conservatives think that by wishing it will happen, as if some sort of fairy is going to provide dental care to children. That is not going to happen. We tried that and it does not work. Now it is time to try the NDP way and get kids' teeth fixed.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 2:23:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just last Friday, thanks to the climate action incentive payments, a family of four received $208 in Manitoba, $275 in Saskatchewan, $269 in Alberta and $186 in the member opposite's province. This will happen four times a year.
We can fight climate change and support Canadians, and that is exactly what we are doing. The Conservatives have no plan to fight climate change and no plan to help Canadians.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 2:44:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what the results are on each side of the House.
Our government brought in the Canada child benefit, and they voted against it. We brought in the middle class tax cut, and the Conservatives voted against it. We brought in the Canada-wide early learning child care initiative, which is already delivering a 50% fee reduction to families in that member's riding of Lethbridge and across her province of Alberta, and the Conservatives voted against it.
They have an opportunity to vote in favour of dental care for low-income children, rental support for low-income workers and supports for Canadians with disabilities. If they care about low-income Canadians, I hope we see their support.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 6:00:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that very informative answer. There were a number of pieces of information that I was unfamiliar with.
One thing I picked up was her reference to what she calls contract partners, which really means the provincial and territorial governments. I am going to ask her if she is saying the following, that if the initiative were taken, say, by the government of Alberta or Saskatchewan, that would be sufficient to start the ball rolling in that province. She also indicated a willingness to work with private sector partners who provide the necessary funds to purchase these things.
May I assume that if that were to happen in some part of the country, and if the RCMP hierarchy were to resist, and it does appear that there has been resistance, institutionally, in the RCMP, that the government would override it and say, “Look, these things have been given for free. Please install them where they are being offered”?
Could she respond to those two questions?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/22 6:01:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to answer a question on RCMP operational details, but I think, as the hon. member knows, right now, the Alberta government is talking about getting out of contract policing and instituting its own police service.
I think, certainly, the hon. member has heard what I am saying, in that it requires consultation with the provincial or municipal partners before we can move forward. As he knows, the cost of this policing is split between the federal and provincial governments. If the hon. member had a private company that wanted to donate AEDs to all RCMP vehicles, I would be happy to work with him on that.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
