44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/27/22 2:38:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the year ahead is going to be rough. A further rise in the key interest rate yesterday will increase household debt. The cost of living remains astronomically high, and there are fears of a recession. The government will have to make some tough choices in the economic update it is supposed to deliver a few weeks from now.
Spending money left and right would add fuel to the fire. For the government to turn its back on its fundamental responsibilities would be a mistake. It has to choose between discipline and austerity. Controlling spending is discipline. Turning its back on our most vulnerable is austerity.
Will the government side with our most vulnerable?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 2:39:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was not clear.
Some of the most vulnerable that the government cannot abandon are seniors.
According to Food Banks Canada, the number of visits this year has shattered records. The number of Quebeckers who needed to use food banks was up 33% compared to 2019.
The first people the organization sees in line are seniors who can no longer cope with inflation. Seniors cannot take any more.
Will the government stop discriminating based on age and increase old age security for everyone 65 and over?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a child in Quebec will receive about half of what a child outside Quebec will receive. There is considerable inequity. Why?
It is because we already pay for dental care in Quebec. Quebec taxpayers already pay once for children's dental care and they are going to pay a second time for the federal program, even though Quebec will only receive half the money handed out elsewhere. That is really inequitable.
We could have fixed this when this bill was being studied in committee. The government just bulldozed it through by imposing a super closure motion.
We could also have fixed the rental assistance component. Why is the government refusing to accommodate Quebec?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. Bill C-31 sets out a dental care program. That is part of health care, which, according to the Constitution, falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
The government chose to interfere in that jurisdiction rather than doing its job in its own jurisdictions. Meanwhile, in Quebec, we have a dental care program for kids that is almost the same as the one proposed here. However, the government fails to take Quebec's program into account in its bill. It is ramming its bill through by imposing gag orders. There is no harmonization with provincial jurisdictions. This centralizing government has no regard for jurisdiction and what exists elsewhere.
What does my hon. colleague think about that?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague and friend from Mirabel on his poignant speech.
As he made clear, we are unhappy with the cavalier way the government is managing Bill C‑31.
Bill C‑31 was poorly drafted. It does not take into account the reality of Quebec in any way whatsoever. It does not line up with what is happening in Quebec, either with respect to the rental support or the dental care support.
Because Quebec has chosen to pay for its own social measures, it is now being largely excluded from and penalized by this bill. There are many ways to fix that, such as a compensation, or even slight changes to the eligibility rules, but nothing was done. It is the type of problem that could have been fixed through the normal process for studying bills, both in the House and in committee, with a minimum of goodwill. However, the government chose the path of super closure to short-circuit the entire normal process.
The hours of debate were reduced and committee studies were minimal, just two hours, which left no time for witnesses to be heard or for the analysis of experts. That was also the case for the people affected by Bill C-31. Our amendments to accommodate Quebec were rejected because the government preferred to use its bulldozer and not listen to reason or the people affected. The government acted in bad faith by refusing to give the House and its committee the opportunity to reasonably carry out their role. This was all aided and abetted by the third opposition party, all for the purpose of moving hastily and ramming through the bill.
This has given us a bad bill that has come back to us at third reading looking just as bad. The result is that, once again, Quebec is being dismissed by this government and by the House.
Let me be very clear. I am totally in favour of the principles of this bill. The Bloc Québécois is all in favour of the principles of this bill, but we are going to vote against it. The reason is that the application of this bill will create great inequities for Quebec and, by short-circuiting the entire process for studying and improving this bill, the government is making the choice to implement a law that is unfair to Quebec. If the government had let the House do its work, we would not be in this position.
Let me explain. The bill discriminates against Quebeckers in both its housing and dental care components. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed our concerns. The people of Quebec will not get their fair share with Bill C-31.
Let us start by looking at the housing component. On October 14, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published his estimates of how much the rental assistance component of Bill C-31 would cost and how many people it would benefit. This part of the bill provides for a one-time cheque for $500. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the people of Quebec would not get their fair share and would be discriminated against.
One eligibility requirement is having a modest income, so $20,000 for a single person or $35,000 for a couple or family. Another requirement is being a renter and putting more than 30% of one's income towards rent. In Quebec, we have collectively chosen to support social housing.
Many low-income households live in low-rent housing or in housing co‑operatives. In these social housing units, the rent is capped at 30% of income, in order to take into account the renters' ability to pay.
These people are therefore excluded from the help being proposed here. Quebec has chosen to be more progressive and collectively pay for a social housing service. With this bill, Quebeckers find themselves paying a second time for a benefit cheque, yet they are largely excluded. There is not a penny in compensation. The result is that this bill discriminates against Quebec because Quebec is too progressive for Ottawa, for this Liberal government and for the NDP, which never stops talking.
I want to be clear. There is still a serious lack of social housing in Quebec. More must be done, and Ottawa must contribute to social housing.
Because the situation is better in Quebec, low-income Quebeckers are being penalized. Because Quebec is too progressive, Ottawa has chosen to deprive Quebec of its rightful portion of the rental assistance. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that because of this 30% rule, as my colleague was saying, 118,000 people in Canada will not be entitled to support, and three-quarters of them live in Quebec. We are talking about 86,700 people.
Why did the government choose to create such an injustice? Why is it refusing to correct it?
Why is it that every time an injustice is inflicted on Quebec, Ottawa chooses to ignore it? Once again, this inequity could have been fixed in committee or in the House. This government refuses to do so, and is deliberately choosing to withhold a significant portion of the assistance to which Quebec is entitled. Is the government ready to commit to correcting this injustice? Thus far, it has refused.
The same goes for the dental component. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also confirmed our fears. Quebec will receive half as much assistance per child on average. According to the PBO's calculations, Quebeckers will receive 13% of the program. If we received our share, it would be 23%. That is a 10% difference. In short, Quebec parents are far from receiving their fair share of the program. The scenario per child is not much better. On average, a child in Quebec will receive half as much as a Canadian child living outside Quebec, as I stated earlier. Furthermore, that is without compensation and without any real assurance that the support will adequately cover dental care costs.
See, these are lump-sum cheques, so parents in Quebec will not get smaller cheques. Instead, half of them will not be eligible for this benefit at all even though parents with similar incomes and in similar situations outside Quebec will be. As my colleague explained, that means approximately 130,000 people in Quebec will be excluded from the program even though, all things being equal, they would be included if they lived outside Quebec.
When we met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer last Friday, he pointed out that there were two reasons for this. The first is that Quebec is too progressive. Because of the Government of Quebec's program, many parents pay nothing when they go to the dentist. That means they cannot get money from Ottawa.
Quebeckers chose to provide dental care for children, and we chose to pay for it. Because we pay for this important service, we will get no help from Ottawa, even though we pay for that too. There is no coordination and no compensation.
The second reason for the disparity is that Quebec is overly unionized. Since our unionization rate is higher than Canada's, a higher proportion of our population has group insurance. This excludes us once again from this bill. Quebec is not getting its fair share because we are more progressive and more unionized.
In Ottawa, the Liberal government and the NDP are choosing to discriminate against progressives and union members. I am not making this up. Because it is too progressive, Quebec is being discriminated against by Ottawa. The government refused to propose an alternative arrangement. The government forced the House to pass this all very quickly, without addressing the inequities. This is unacceptable, which is why we have to vote against the bill, even though we support the principle.
Without a doubt, my nation is being ill served by its neighbour, who makes decisions for us about our own money, and who no longer even tries to offer arrangements or accommodations. I hope everyone remembers this.
1349 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the principle behind my colleague's comments.
However, right now we are talking about technical aspects of the bill, which was drafted quickly. The principle is good, and the Bloc agrees with everything my colleague said. The problem is in the execution. The bill was drafted so quickly that we wanted to know how it could possibly line up with Quebec's program and those of the other provinces and take their reality into account. We were told that this was not up for discussion, that we could not invite witnesses, that no amendments would be accepted and that none would be proposed to deal with that. The government forgot to harmonize its program with the existing programs in Quebec and the other provinces. As a result, Quebec is getting half as much as it should be getting.
In Quebec, we choose to pay for dental insurance for children. We are prepared to pay for federal dental insurance for the part that is not covered, but all we are asking for is harmonization. What the government is doing with the NDP, which is doing nothing but complain, is saying that we have to pay without getting any compensation or harmonization in return. The whole process is flawed because the government imposed super closure, preventing the House and the committees from doing their job. It is because the government botched the process that we are now being forced to vote against the bill today.
249 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question and for his kind words. The feeling is mutual. I appreciate my hon. colleague's dedication and desire to do good and work hard and everything he does for democracy in the House.
We are not in the loop, of course, but we do know there was an agreement to create a dental benefit. The problem is, Ottawa does not have the expertise to provide services directly to the people, whereas the provinces do. What officials told us when the most recent budget came out was that they did not know how they were going to set this up, that it was bound to be long and complicated, and that it would not work.
I suspect that, when the government said that to the other opposition party in the context of the agreement, it was told that would not fly and it would have to find another way. The government cannot create a real insurance program, so it opted to send cheques. The NDP said to be quick about it or lose their support, so the government did it quickly and haphazardly without really taking the facts and the technicalities into account. We figured we could make changes in committee, but the government was not interested and swiftly shut things down with a super closure motion. If a bill is bad from the get-go and does not get amended, it is still a bad bill.
250 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As I said, we are in favour of the principle. There is a factual problem with his question. He is saying that the program is for every child in Quebec or for the parents of every child in Quebec. That is not true.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked into this, and he showed that Quebec will receive only half as much as the rest of Canada will be getting. Quebec is being discriminated against. All we are asking is to drop this super closure motion that the NDP supported so that we can improve this bill in committee. If we had been able to amend it and improve it in committee, we would be voting in favour of the bill now. However, the government imposed super closure on a bill that is out of touch with reality and does not provide fair compensation. If we had had a chance to do the work to ensure that we were not getting just half of what we are entitled to, then we would have voted in favour of the bill. There are consequences to supporting super closure.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
