44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, timing is something that has to be taken into consideration. For me, personally, I look at the pharmacare program and I believe it would be nice for us to continue to work toward having a national pharmacare program. It was a couple of years ago, I think in September of 2020 or it might have been 2021, I am not 100% sure, when the federal government in the throne speech said we are are looking for willing provincial partners to talk about a national pharmacare program. That is one of the reasons, in recognizing the importance of this dental program, we need to be prepared at times to move forward. That is what we are seeing today. Timing is very important. I look forward to how we might be able to continue to expand this particular program.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do support this bill. I would like to share with the hon. member what I hear when I ask constituents what their top-of-mind issues are. Health care is right up there. I have never heard them say dental.
If this bill were calling for every family to get access to a family doctor and every community to have ambulances and emergency care, I would not care how many closure motions were used. I would vote for it. However, I cannot support closure motions on principle, and on this one, why this priority now? The wheels are falling off the bus of health care in this country, and I am desperate to see a federal-provincial health accord that makes the difference so that Canadians have the health care we have come to expect—
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 9:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
We are running out of time. There are 18 seconds left, but I will let the hon. member respond with a brief answer.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a health care accord has been achieved with this government and other provincial jurisdictions, and it is something that continues to be ongoing.
In regard to the dental program, this is a first step. It is recognized that as a result of this particular program we will likely be seeing far fewer children going into our hospitals and using up some of those beds and emergency services, which will alleviate the load and the costs of other health care services. Therefore, it makes sense in many ways.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are broke. That is the state of this country. We are $1.3 trillion in debt and we are having trouble keeping the lights on, so to speak.
Now is not the time for expensive new government programs, particularly when we have a government that is negligent on all of the other things that it is in charge of. I do not have to point very far. Have members had constituents trying to get a passport lately? Folks are waiting months for a passport. That is a basic role of the Canadian government.
The federal government does not have too many jobs. It has to manage the military. It has to manage our border security. It has to manage our justice system. Those would be top priorities for the government. In all three of those cases, it is failing dramatically, never mind coming up with or running new programs.
Here we are, the government has run our credit cards up to the max, and now it is going out and talking about buying a new Rolls Royce, while Canadians are out there trying to figure out how they are going to keep their older car on the road. Buying a new car has become unaffordable for many Canadians, and new cars are hard to come by. Therefore, Canadians are looking at Kijiji and Facebook Marketplace for a used car, and finding out the used car they bought maybe six or seven years ago is still worth the same amount of money they bought it for. These are the challenges.
The member for Winnipeg North just spoke before me, and we heard over and over again about supporting Canadians. There is a difference between when Conservatives say supporting Canadians and when the Liberals say supporting Canadians. When the Liberals say it, they generally mean getting out the chequebook and writing a cheque. When the Conservatives say supporting Canadians, they mean making sure that the systems of government work to ensure that Canadians can thrive.
I reference this more like a tree. If Canada were an apple tree in an orchard of which we got to enjoy the fruit, Conservatives would be concerned about the soil and making sure that the tree got enough water, that the roots were well tended for, that the tree grew and flourished, maybe pruning the tree where it was needed, and therefore watching, expecting and hoping for a harvest of apples. Liberals do not want to worry about all of those kinds of things, they just want to make sure that they can polish the couple of apples that are there to make them really shiny and show them off, while perhaps the tree is dying, there is not enough attention or water coming to the tree, the soil has eroded or the tree has not been pruned in a very long time.
That is where I feel the difference is between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Liberals want to emphasize the fruit without being concerned about the tree the fruit is growing on, the systems that are in place to ensure that Canadians thrive. When Conservatives say they will support Canadians, they mean making sure that our systems in this country operate in a manner so that Canadians can continue to thrive.
We have seen that in the past when Conservative governments were in power. We saw things like crime rates going down, our dollar improving in value, the average working wages of Canadians going up and housing remaining affordable.
We warned the government that, when it did not run balanced budgets, eventually inflation would come into play, and when it was printing money like it was going out of style, eventually inflation would catch on. Here we are in a world of out-of-control inflation, where the cost of living has gone up and where housing is completely unaffordable. Now the government, after causing that problem, is coming in and saying that it will write a cheque to ensure it can eliminate some of the pain we are feeling, and it will come up with a new program.
Going back to my tree analogy, now the tree is half-dead and we have to resuscitate it. We have to go build an irrigation system. We should have been concerned about that a long time ago.
Again, another case in point around this is LNG in this country. When I first got elected back in 2015, there were 15 LNG projects on the books. Companies were knocking on Canada's door, saying that they would like to start an LNG project here in Canada. Today, seven years later, not one of those projects has been built. Again that is one of those cases where there was a lack of tending to the roots and tending to the soil, tending to the things that make our country survive.
Canadians are suffering today. I do not know if members know of something called “stumpot”. It is a good Dutch meal. It is potatoes and carrots or potatoes and kale mixed together. It is kind of like mashed potatoes, but it is all mixed together and typically they put a good bratwurst or sausage on top of it. I hear from people who say they cannot afford the sausage anymore. They are having to go with hot dogs on the top. That is the thing. Canadians are supplementing their diets with inferior products because they cannot afford the food that they are used to eating. That is a real challenge for them.
Now the government is concerned about dental and rental. That is what the Liberals are calling this bill. We see the government once again get out the chequebook of Canada and pull out the credit card of Canada and say that there is not a problem that they cannot solve without spending some more money.
One of the things that we could have in this country is water on reserves. I do not know if members know this, but they put fluoride in most public water systems in this country to prevent dental issues. It helps dental health dramatically to have fluoride in the water. The government, back in 2015, promised that it would have drinking water on reserves. One of the consequences of having water on reserves would be improved dental health.
However, we have seen that this has been a total failure of the current government. The Liberals promised back in 2015 that by 2019 the government would have the water on reserves fixed. Here we are, seven years later, and it still continues to be a problem. That is another example of where the government has failed. Here it is now with a shiny object, a “polishing the fruit” exercise, writing cheques to individual Canadians and trying to solve the problems that it was negligent on or created in the past. That is generally a major problem.
We are seeing in these systems of Canada and in the way that Canada works, that generally these are indications of the health of the society and the health of the system. We generally have conversations about competing systems from one country to another.
The Government of Canada, the Liberal government, brought in a MAID regime that is now being used as an alleviation to poverty. We see that people in countries around the world are writing in horror in their own media. There was a headline just the other day out of the U.K. saying, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?” That is a headline coming out of the U.K. Not only has the Liberal government made life unaffordable for Canadians, but it has made a euthanasia regime that is so wide open with holes, that the poor are accessing MAID instead of being able to live in dignity right here in Canada. We see all of those issues going on.
I see this as being nothing more than a vote-buying exercise and a major distraction as Canadians suffer under the weight of this Liberal-made inflation. Now the Liberals come out with a payment scheme that goes directly to members of the public to alleviate some of these problems. I do not deny that $500 would be a dramatic improvement for many people's lives. Nonetheless, going back to my tree analogy, it does not go to feeding the roots, pruning the tree or maybe throwing some fertilizer into the system to ensure that we can enjoy the fruit of the fruit tree by ensuring that our systems operate, by ensuring that we can have clean water on reserves, by ensuring that our justice system works properly so that we do not have to live in a world of crime, by ensuring that we can get a passport and by ensuring that our border is secure.
Therefore, I will not be supporting the bill because I do not think that it tackles the fundamental issues here in Canada.
1508 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been listening attentively to this debate throughout the day. The Conservative members, one after another, get up and talk about how they are going to leave behind 30% of the population, as 30% of their constituents do not deserve dental care. This is their statistic. I do not necessarily agree with it, but 30% of their constituents deserve to be in pain and do not deserve to smile.
I wonder what the hon. member is going to say to his constituents about that, those three in 10, when he gets publicly funded dental care and they do not deserve it.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member, who is not from Alberta, which I will forgive him for, that we have a great system for ensuring that everybody who needs dental care gets dental care. I think that is a fact across the country. Many provinces have in place a system to ensure that the people who need dental care get dental care. That is a fact. If there is concern around the funding of dental care, as the Bloc has pointed out, why is the government duplicating some of these systems and not just transferring the money to the provinces?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Earlier, I heard a Conservative colleague say in the House that the government needs to stop spending when she was talking about housing in relation to Bill C‑31. If the government stops spending, how will it solve the problem?
Recently, I was speaking with an economist from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation who was saying that, if nothing is done in the next 10 years in Quebec, 500,000 housing units will be built. However, to address the affordability and accessibility crisis in Quebec alone, an additional 600,000 units need to be built. This is not a problem that is going to solve itself. The government is going to have to invest in housing somewhere along the way.
What does my colleague think about that?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the interesting things here is that there are many things I think the government can and needs to do, without spending money, to encourage the building of houses. I do not have a really clear grasp on that, but I would say that when it comes to the border crossing at Roxham Road, to go to an example I know a bit more about, the Liberals have always accused the Conservatives of not spending a lot on border measures. However, when we were in power, Roxham Road was not an issue because we had enforcement at the border in Canada. There are many things the government can do to encourage these things without spending money.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from Alberta. In Alberta there is no dental care program like the one the member just mentioned. I want to clarify the record there.
However, there are 500,000 Canadian children without dental care right now. It may feel convenient that members of the House, and of course those on the Conservative bench in particular, have these benefits. They have dental care for themselves. They have dental care for their children. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayer. All we are doing is making sure that these 500,000 Canadian children have the same access.
They deserve dental care. Would the member agree?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to dispute the facts, Alberta Health Services has a dental program for those in financial need. I do not know what else the member is referring to. It is available for everybody who needs dental care in Alberta.
While I am talking about folks in Alberta, what they really need is the economy to be thriving. What they need is pipelines to be built so that we all have good jobs and we can all afford dental care. We do not need a government program to provide it.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you are looking sharp this evening. I am sure it will improve the quality of the debate.
I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑31. Perhaps I should start by reviewing the principle.
I identify as a progressive. If I were asked whether I would support a dental care program, I am inclined to say yes, as a progressive. I believe that what most progressives want, in practice, is to support people who have a little less social capital than perhaps some other folks, and this is expressed through social policies that tend to be more generous.
This is indeed the case when we think of family policies in Quebec. This is also the case when we think of access to education. Looking at the principle, then, I do think that having a dental care program is a good idea. However, I must qualify that with a very significant “but”.
To explain this significant “but”, I would like to examine the intentions and the motivations of our Liberal and NDP colleagues. When speaking of intentions and motivations, I do not wish to ascribe any intentions, I simply want to see what is the reason for this proposal. People who are rather cynical might say that the only motivation is the deal reached by the NDP and the Liberal Party. I am not going to go there.
In my opinion, the NDP and the Liberal Party may have thought about developing a slightly more generous policy. I am prepared to give them that. However, there is a major problem with jurisdiction. What the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, is proposing does not fall within the authority of the House of Commons.
I will explain the NDP's motivation by referring to a study conducted a few years ago that really struck me. In the early 2000s, there was a pan-Canadian study—
323 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 9:55:31 p.m.
- Watch
Order. Some members are talking loudly.
I would ask members to step out into the lobby to have their conversations and to show respect to those who have the floor. I know they would appreciate that if they were the ones speaking.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do encourage them to leave the chamber, since I am sure their conversations are less interesting than what I am presenting.
I would like to get back to the government's motivations. In the early 2000s, a major study was done in several Canadian universities to define Canadian identity. They wanted to distinguish between the identity of Canadians in North America and the identity of people in the United States. When Quebeckers were asked what made them different from Americans, they immediately talked about their culture and language. When Canadians were asked what made them different from Americans, they immediately talked about the health care system and therefore social policy.
That is significant. It speaks to a certain tendency regarding identity. Canadians identify with social policy and yet, when you look at how the Constitution is laid out, all the social aspects fall under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction.
I have the impression that many people in the Liberal Party and the NDP understand that social policies are a strong political driver, that they help parties build up their political base and win the approval of certain segments of the population. Perhaps this is why they are so motivated to bring in a dental care policy.
I think this is very ill-advised because the Liberal government is currently having trouble with its own services. Look at immigration. It is a disaster. Anyone who watched the news today could see there was discrimination. The government often boasts about fighting racism, but we saw that in its own departments there is a form of racism against African francophone students. Eliminating this racism is a worthy fight; it is work that the Liberal government could try to do. We saw that at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
We also saw terrible delays in passport delivery and not a day goes by without a member of our party rising to ask a question about not only the terrible delays with employment insurance, but also the difficulty accessing employment insurance. If the Liberals are so progressive, then why do they not try to engage in this type of action?
Coming back to the motivations of the Liberal Party and the NDP, I would say that the main motivation is more likely the deal between the Liberals and the NDP, which was difficult to reach. I would simply remind members that in an interview with Le Devoir in August, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the government must take time before implementing the type of policy proposed by the NDP. She also pointed out in that article that they had a great deal of difficulty reaching a day care agreement with the provinces.
What the Liberal Party is telling us today, backed by the NDP, is that they are going to fast-track this, that there will be no debate about putting dental care in place, that the bill will be immediately referred to a committee, that we will not have time to discuss it here. Will the same thing happen when the government has to negotiate with the provinces? That is a great concern of mine.
I will stop to drink some water because my lips are stuck to my teeth, and that may not be the best thing for my dental health.
I do not understand why the Liberal Party thinks it is so urgent to pass this type of bill under a gag order, especially since, if we look at what is being done in Quebec, we see that Quebec society is probably one of the most progressive. The progressive aspects of the social policies that we have seen over the past 25 years are generally initiatives that came from Quebec. For example, medical assistance in dying and the parental policy are initiatives that came from Quebec.
In my opinion, it is clear that the Government of Quebec does not need federal initiatives to implement social policies that meet the needs of its population because it has proven itself capable of doing so in the past.
There is one question that needs answering, though. Why is the Government of Quebec not currently implementing its own dental care policy? The answer is quite simple. The Quebec government is not doing so because it is having a hard time meeting its health care obligations with what it receives from the federal government.
I would like to talk about something relatively simple, and that is how the Canadian federation has been undermining politics for decades. I am talking about the fiscal imbalance. This is not something that a Bloc Québécois MP made up. It is something that was carefully studied by a federalist. The Séguin report unequivocally shows that the federal government is underfunding public services without every paying the political price.
My fear is that this dental program will meet the same fate as health care services. The federal government will set up a program, but it will eventually become underfunded. The provinces will have to manage the program, and they will pay the political price. Meanwhile, the federal government will wash its hands of this program in a few years and will have set another precedent that puts pressure on provincial policies.
878 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member for Jonquière's speech. He made some strong, well-researched arguments that I think make sense.
I would like him to explain to me in different words why he thinks that the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, had to impose a major gag order and fast-track the passage of this bill when we know that more time was needed to properly research it, listen to experts and, most importantly, consult the provinces.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my whip for that great question.
I truly believe that the motives of the Liberal government and the NDP leave much to be desired. Obviously, more investments in health would have been good. If we look closely at the bill that is before us, we quickly see that a health care program could be a possibility a few years down the road in a different context. At the stage we are at now, what would be good is if the government would properly fund health care again.
If the government does not want to talk about that, draw things out and give us the opportunity to point out all the weaknesses in its arguments, then the best thing for it to do is impose a gag order. That is what we are seeing today. That is what the government is doing. The explanation is rather simple. This program does not cut it in the current context. The provinces do not think that this program cuts it, and the only way to get the bill passed as quickly as possible is to impose a gag order.
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is not acceptable is the Bloc Québécois's schizophrenia with regard to this initiative. First, the Bloc tells us that it is very important to provide dental care and that it is a very praiseworthy objective. Then they tell us that we are moving too quickly. These statements do not jive.
We agree with the Bloc Québécois that it is very important to provide dental care to those who need it and we are taking action.
I would ask my colleague to be more coherent on this issue, if possible. First, the Bloc wants us to take action, but then they do not want us to take action. How is that possible?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps my colleague misunderstood what I was saying.
What is really incoherent is forging ahead with a dental care program when home care services for seniors and health care funding are completely inadequate. To me, that is what is incoherent. When my house is on fire, I do not worry about the colour of the curtains. I focus on what needs to be done immediately.
Everyone is in agreement right now, including the provincial premiers. Even all the medical specialist associations and health care stakeholders have gotten involved. Everyone agrees that there is an urgent need to reinvest in health care.
The Liberal government, with help from the NDP, is trying to do something nice as we come out of a crisis by offering a political program that may be necessary, but not right now. That would be coherent. Realizing that health care is underfunded and trying to address that problem would be more coherent than adding a new program.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conversation being held here tonight because we are aware that, even in Veterans Affairs, the government is great at preparing the money but not at getting it out the door.
There are programs already in place, as the member mentioned, in his province, as there are in ours. Does he see this as recreating something that already exists that the government simply needs to support?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not feel that the government is recreating something that already exists. It seems to me that it is interfering in something that is none of its business.
It is up to the provinces to develop a health care system. If they want to do it, they will do it. The federal government should do what it has the power to do, which is transfer money to improve health care funding.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
