44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 27, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, talk about being out of touch with what Canadians expect of the government.
Here we have supports at a time when Canadians are looking for leadership in Ottawa, and the Conservative Party continues to want to frustrate Canadians through these tactics and the policy flip-flopping that takes place.
Why does the member not support children under the age 12 having support in getting dental care? This would prevent children from having to go to the hospital. This would allow children to get the dental work they need. Why is the Conservative Party opposed to these children under the age of 12? Shame on them.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love children under the age of 12. I have had three of my own who were once under the age 12. I also have two grandchildren under the age of 12. I love them very much.
It harkens back to understanding that the government very clearly does not understand there is a mental health crisis, and it will not commit to the Canada mental health transfer the Liberals promised in their platform since the election in 2021, which of course, we all know was called during a pandemic and was unnecessary. They refuse to commit that money. Why did it take them so long to create a three-digit suicide prevention hotline? Why do they hate people who have mental health issues?
I do not know, but as I said before, understanding that, if the roof of one's house is off, then trying to fix the front step, does not mean it is not important, but it means that one has to fix the most important thing first. That is the crisis we have in the health care system and for those suffering with mental health here in Canada.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his speech.
At the beginning of his speech, I was listening and thinking that if he lived in Quebec, he would surely be a member of the Bloc Québécois, because he defends many of the Bloc’s arguments.
I heard him speak about the unwieldy system and the interminable debates we have on issues that could be settled much more easily. I am thinking more specifically about seniors and about mental health and dental care. Curiously, these are all sectors that are under the provinces’ and Quebec’s jurisdiction.
The federal government could agree once and for all to meet Quebec’s and the provinces’ unanimous request to increase health transfers, so that these issues could be addressed by those who are responsible for them. Does my colleague not agree that this would be much simpler, and that it would save us a lot of time, allow us to talk about other things, and have constructive debates like the one we had the day before yesterday on the monarchy?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his input with respect to this. There are certain things that I really enjoy in my relationship with my Bloc colleagues, and there are certain other things, of course, that make me sad inside as a Canadian to understand the difficulties that we have. I wish we could all hold hands, sing Kumbaya and live in much more harmony in this great country, because we do have an absolutely fantastic country.
This morning, I got to my office at eight o'clock so that I could take French lessons, which happen twice a week. I think it is important that we as Canadians embrace the great culture that we do have here.
I also think that there are certain provinces that are not going to be helped by this proposed dental program. For instance, Nova Scotia has a great dental program now, and the amount of money that we would actually receive from this program is very minimal when other provinces would benefit significantly. I do not think that the “Ottawa knows best” approach is any way to continue to do things.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am astonished by the speech from the member for Cumberland—Colchester. He pits people with mental health challenges against families who need dental health care.
If we actually took the money that we spend, that we waste, on fossil fuel subsidies, and if we made corporations pay what they owe in terms of taxes, we would have far enough funds in this country to pay for both dental health care and mental health care. Why does the member try to pit Canadians against each other?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think that is the point. Maybe the member was perhaps not listening carefully, but we are not trying to pit people against each other.
The sad reality is that, in spite of the fact that the costly coalition thinks money grows on trees in the backyard and can be poured out of a firehose, it is just not how any economy works. We know that we have to pick and choose where money needs to be spent and, again, if the roof is off of one's house, one does not put a front step on. That only makes sense to me. I am trying to make it as simple as possible, and I am unsure why people have a difficult time understanding economics 101.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the much-discussed Bill C-31 introduced by the Liberal government. What to think about it?
This is an unusual bill. On the one hand, it proposes helping families with children under the age of 12 access dental care. On the other hand, it provides rent assistance to those who are struggling to make ends meet because of inflation. In essence, these are ideas we cannot very well oppose. The bill is positive, and the intention is laudable.
The question, however, is why and how it was done. I think that how it was done is more important, because although people may have good intentions, the way they carry them out can be less than perfect.
In this case, the Liberal government says that it introduced this bill because of inflation. However, the real reason they introduced the bill is that the Liberal government across the aisle made a deal with the NDP, and the NDP sold out for a pittance. The NDP promised that they would force down anything put in front of them without a peep. They promised they would close their eyes and bury their heads in the sand even if it made no sense. All the NDP asked for in return was that the government implement a dental care program.
2021 is over and done with, and we are now at the end of 2022. The government was not going to do it, and, understandably, the NDP was disappointed. The NDP therefore asked the government to at least pretend to respect the deal under which it gave the Liberals carte blanche.
The government then agreed to develop a program, which it basically scribbled on the back of a napkin. It presented a program that had several problems. Actually, it is not really a program, because all they are doing is sending out cheques. Are they really enabling people to access dental care by sending out cheques? Will people really have less trouble paying their rent if the government sends out cheques? These are reasonable questions. If we take a closer look at the bill, we may be able to answer them. It is even more important to know who will be receiving those cheques. Another issue is how the money will be distributed.
Rent assistance should help everyone. The government plans to send a $500 cheque to families who earn less than $35,000 a year. I must say, it is very difficult to make ends meet when you earn less than $35,000 a year, especially with ever-increasing rental costs. According to one of the program’s eligibility criteria, families who earn less than $35,000 a year must allocate at least 30% of their income to rent.
Therein lies the rub, and it is the same thing for dental benefits. In Quebec, we decided to help our people, but Canada has decided to adopt another approach. In Quebec, for example, we have co-operative housing that fosters sharing. People often pay rent based on their income. Some people pay higher rent to compensate for those who pay lower rent. We try to avoid having people pay more than 30% of their income on housing. That does not mean that these people are fabulously wealthy or that they are driving Ferraris. It simply means that there are people helping them make ends meet.
Unfortunately, these people are not eligible for the assistance in this bill, and that is disappointing. The same is true for people who live in low-income housing. In Quebec, we decided to finance social housing so that many people could have access to rental housing and put a roof over their families’ heads. These are people who do not have a lot of money. Some of them are retired and live solely on their federal pension and a few cents from the guaranteed income supplement. They can barely put food on the table.
The government says that it will help everyone except these people, the very poorest. They are telling those who are struggling the hardest to make ends meet that, since they are already getting assistance, the government will help someone else instead. That is disappointing, because many Quebeckers will be completely ineligible, since Quebec has a social safety net and the federal government across the way did not take that into account when it developed its program at the kitchen table. Naturally, the New Democrats are rubbing their hands together with glee because they can say they gained something. It is disappointing, because, in the end, Quebeckers will be the losers, and they will lose out even more with the second component of the program, the dental benefit.
The Bloc already had reservations about this bill, but it is even more worried about the dental care benefit. I will tell members why. When people think teeth, they do not automatically think federal government. They think that dental care is a health issue and that the health system is under the Quebec government’s jurisdiction. This is even mentioned in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Liberals are certainly very familiar with the Constitution. They wrote it themselves in 1982 when they patriated it. They added a few bits and pieces to it, but they must have looked to see what was already in it before adding other bits, to make sure that it all made sense. They are the guardians of the famous Constitution they imposed on Quebec in 1867 and again in 1982. They can say what they want, but there was no referendum in Quebec before the Constitution was adopted in 1867. There were even major debates about whether it was a good thing or not. The vote had a very low turnout, unlike all the other votes, and they wanted to avoid putting the question to the ballot box and to Quebeckers.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, are important. I remember hearing members across the aisle yesterday saying that it is crazy, that we cannot vote on the monarchy, we cannot sever ties with the King, because we would have to open the Constitution. For them, the Constitution is like the Bible. They lie in bed at night reading and praying to the Constitution. We cannot overlook that fact. It is obvious. However, when we see the great bills introduced here on a daily basis, we realize that the Constitution is practically used as toilet paper. Clearly, when it does not suit them, they do not respect their own Constitution.
That is sad, because under the Constitution, health care is the purview of the provinces and Quebec. If the Liberals had said that they were going to give dental benefits to indigenous people or military members, that might make sense, because their health care actually is a federal responsibility. However, it is outrageous for them to meddle in matters that are none of their business when, as we know, they are not even capable of providing us with passports. People want to take flights, but they have to wait in line for days to get a passport. Once they get to the airport, they have to wait for hours to collect their bags. Then they have to stand in never-ending lines to board the plane, and when they get out, they do it all over again.
I went on a flight very recently, and I was amazed to discover there was no waiting in line in Europe. Everything moved quickly. I was really surprised. I wondered how this could be possible, since we were told that the problem was global. Apparently, we are different from the rest of the world. Canada has even ranked among the worst countries.
The federal government is not even able to provide the services it is actually responsible for. It can take years to process immigration applications for temporary foreign workers, leaving businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are calling us in a panic because they cannot get the workers they requested a long time ago, and yet this federal government is telling Quebec that it knows how to deal with the problems. It says that it knows better than Quebec about things Quebec is already doing. It says it will impose a new system on top of the system that already exists in Quebec.
Let us not forget that all children under the age of 10 are already covered in Quebec. There is already universal coverage in Quebec for youth who need dental care, so this federal program does absolutely nothing for all children under the age of 10. The sad part is that Quebeckers will continue to pay their taxes to the federal government. What will happen? The federal government will take Quebeckers' money and send it elsewhere, because Quebec already helps its residents. What I was saying earlier about rent will help happen again with children. Ultimately, we are getting shafted.
The federal government will not only cover children under the age of 10, but children aged 10 to 12, as well. We are talking about a two-year gap. It could be argued that getting a little something for children between 10 and 12 is worthwhile, but that emphasizes another difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We have a much higher unionization rate than the rest of Canada. The NDP should be happy about that, but that is not reflected in their support for the bill. Since Quebec has a much higher unionization rate, that means that Quebeckers often have better working conditions and are able to negotiate to obtain better coverage, including dental care. As a result, many children between 10 and 12 are already get dental coverage.
It is sad because, once again, they built—
1646 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 10:51:53 a.m.
- Watch
Order. The member's time has expired. I tried to signal him. I am sure he will have some time during questions and comments.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the separatists in the House of Commons do not want a national program that provides dental care for all Canadian children under the age of 12, which does not surprise me. They are the same members who would argue that the federal government has no role in this, even though the Canada Health Act deals with health care in the provinces. Canadians expect a national government to provide the type of care that is needed.
If the member is so convinced that the province of Quebec would not benefit from this program, would he then agree that the money allocated to Quebec under this program will be covered by the salaries of members from the Bloc? It is silly for them to say that children in Quebec will not benefit from this program, because the member knows better. Would he not agree that children in Quebec will benefit from this program?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member across the aisle is interesting, because he is playing word games. He says that we should support the program because Quebeckers will get money. It is true, some Quebeckers will get money.
The problem is that, on average, Quebeckers will receive half the amount per child that people in the rest of Canada will get. On average, Quebeckers will receive about $80 per child, while people in the rest of Canada will receive $160.
We are being shortchanged, and the NDP is complicit. That is a problem. The hon. member across the aisle himself clearly said that Canadians expect the federal government to implement large-scale national programs. What it is doing is imposing its views on the provincial governments, even though there is a Constitution that he himself was ardently defending just yesterday. It is crazy.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the discussion we are having, especially when I listen to government members on this. I am wondering if the government actually did any consultations with the provinces and territories about these programs. I know the Canadian Dental Association has also pushed back, saying it would like to see an extension of the programs that already exist in the provinces. I do understand the member from Quebec, because we have a government that is speaking about federal stuff that really is within the provincial realm.
I would like to hear from the member as to whether he thinks the province was even consulted on any of this.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague asked a very good question. Were the provinces consulted?
To my knowledge, the Canadian Dental Association must not have been consulted. If it was consulted, no one listened, because what it recommends is more funding to enhance existing programs. I want to emphasize the words “existing programs”, because that makes all the difference.
The sad thing is that, not so long ago, the federal government decided to overstep its jurisdiction and say that it would fund day care. We were a little skeptical, but when it said that it would compensate the provinces that already had their own system, we were more understanding. After all, at least it understood that Quebec already had its own program.
Why was the government not able to do the same thing for dental care? I cannot think of a reason other than a desire to assert its power, or maybe it messed up and does not want to admit it.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the saying goes, it is better to laugh than cry. We are getting a glimpse of the Bloc Québécois's despair at not being able to achieve anything concrete for Quebeckers.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 71,000 children in Quebec will benefit from the dental care program. Some 480,000 Quebeckers will benefit from the rent allowance.
Is the Bloc Québécois member really saying that he is against direct assistance for 71,000 children and 480,000 renters?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I would like to know is whether the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is okay with Quebec receiving half as much money as the rest of Canada, despite the fact that we pay our taxes like everyone else. It is outrageous.
The federal government is overstepping its jurisdiction. I look forward to seeing the hon. member try to defend this to the Quebeckers in his riding and across Quebec, saying that he clapped and boasted about Quebec not receiving its fair share of a federal program.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate this morning on Bill C-31.
As members know, Bill C-31 has two provisions to it. One is to ensure that children under 12 in families with limited incomes will be able to get support for their oral health. We have heard that the Conservative members are opposed to this. I have heard them say over and again that dental care is not a priority. I have heard them say, very specifically, that children who cannot access dental care do not need it. I can hardly believe it, yet I hear it over and again. In fact, the member for Cumberland—Colchester said at committee, “I think very clearly we've obviously established there's no dental crisis here.”
I do not know which rock the Conservatives have been hiding under because the reality is this. Over 500,000 children cannot access dental care because their families do not have the financial means to do so and they do not have the coverage. Children miss school, they suffer and they are in pain because they do not have access to dental care. People end up in emergency rooms because they need dental care support.
Just because the Conservatives, including their leader, have had dental care support covered by the taxpayers for decades does not mean that there are people who do not need it. I have met families in my community that need this service. They are very thankful. The dream of the NDP, the vision of Tommy Douglas, who brought all of us national universal health care to years ago, was always to see dental care included along with pharmacare. Now, 60 years later, in a minority government, the NDP has forced the Liberals to deliver exactly that, and I am very proud of this work.
The other provision related to this bill is with respect to housing. It is not everything I want, but it is something. The NDP was able to force the government to provide a one-time payment to low-income families, a $500 housing benefit for approximately 1.8 million people across the country.
I also moved four amendments at committee. Three of them passed, which is why we are back here debating the amendments today. I am glad the government supported these amendments and that the minister has, on the two that require royal recommendation, undertaken to do that.
What are these amendments?
One is with respect to the application process. Bill C-31 originally only provided a 90-day window for people to apply. I was very worried about that, because people have technology issues. They do not have access to technology or some may not even be technology literate. Many seniors in my riding also have a language barrier. Therefore, my fear was that 90 days would not be enough time for people to access this program, because they have to apply for it. It is not automatic. Therefore, I moved an amendment to change the 90-day requirement to 120 days to give that bit of extra time for people to make the application. I am glad it was supported and the motion passed, not because of the Conservatives but because of the Bloc and the Liberals. I am thankful for that.
The other amendment I moved at committee was about the provisions related to eligible rent that a person could claim if they were in a room and board situation. The original bill said they could claim only 75% of that rent. I was able to move an amendment to change it to 90%, to increase it slightly. Why? If people are paying room and board with other services like utilities, the utilities may not be 25% of their total rent, yet 25% will be deducted from their claim. My view was that we needed to close that gap, so I moved an amendment to change it from 75% to 90%.
I am very glad the government and the Bloc supported it, wanting to support people who need this one-time housing benefit to help them out. I am very thankful for the passage of that amendment.
Lastly, the amendment that also passed with the support of the Bloc and the Liberals was to ensure that families who are in a cohabitation situation are able to claim the benefit according to the actual rent the respecting partners pay, not 50%. The original bill says they can claim only 50% of their total rent. To me it should be according to the amount they pay, not some arbitrary number like the 50% the government had put forward. I am glad that an amendment to say it should reflect the actual rent was adopted with the support of the Bloc and the Liberals.
These are the enhancements we were able to bring forward as New Democrats to this bill. That is what we are debating today.
There are people, the Conservatives, who say no, they do not support it. I keep hearing them say we cannot afford it. That is their underlying message. Despite the fact that the oil and gas sector made $147 billion last year, they will not have any discussion about imposing a profiteering tax and making sure those companies pay their fair share so that those who are most vulnerable and in the greatest need in our community will have a bit of support during this time.
Who are the people who will benefit? We are talking about people whose income is less than $35,000 a couple or less than $20,000 for a single person, who are paying more than 30% of their total income toward rent. It is a pittance, if we think about it, $500 to support them, yet the Conservatives say no, we cannot afford it. My goodness, how could we? The roof is falling in. We cannot even fix our steps. What are these steps? These steps that we need to address are the very people who have the greatest need.
To all the members of the House who oppose this, let me just put on the record how many people would benefit from this in their respective provinces: In Newfoundland, 16,800 people will benefit from this; in P.E.I., 4,000; in Nova Scotia, 45,400; New Brunswick, 28,500; Quebec, 568,800; Ontario, 718,400; Manitoba, 63,700; Saskatchewan, 49,500; Alberta, 130,900; British Columbia, 159,600; all together, 1.785 million people. That is the number of people who could receive this housing benefit.
We are talking about a $500 housing benefit at a time when inflation, the cost of living and the cost of food are skyrocketing. That is what we are talking about. Can we really find it within ourselves to say we cannot afford it? Can we really say that those people do not deserve some help at this critical time?
I know the Conservatives might be frustrated with my comments. They should be, because they are being called out. They are being called out on their approach to this. I get that being in government is about determining where the priorities are. New Democrats are here to help people. That is what this bill is all about.
1221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member has amplified how these programs are going to have a direct impact on so many Canadians in all regions of our country.
I would highlight the fact that when we take a look at inflation rates, even though Canada, in comparison to the world, is doing relatively well, we still need to take direct action to support Canadians. That is really what Bill C-31 would be doing, while at the same time establishing a national dental program for our children. I am wondering if the member can expand on its true value and how it is helping in a time of need but also providing future hope for a more permanent dental program for Canadians.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals finally saw the light about the importance of a dental care program. The truth of the matter is the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this when the NDP introduced it just last year. Here we are. I am glad 24 New Democrats were able to force the government to act.
This bill is the beginning of bringing dental services to Canadians. This year, it is for children under 12 in families with incomes of less than $90,000, then next year it will be available to seniors, people with disabilities and people under 18, and then the year after that for other adults. This is what we are talking about, and it is exactly what Tommy Douglas envisioned, which was to bring forward a national dental care program for all Canadians.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think Tommy Douglas would be very happy right now if he saw the state of medicare in Canada, with a quarter of Canadians without a family doctor. That is a crisis.
I would like to hear my hon. colleague's response to the following question. How many Canadians would be affected positively by fixing medicare versus the positive effects of the dental care program, especially when it comes to mental health, which is a real crisis? I congratulate her on the figures she rattled off, and I am sure she has a great researcher. I hope she is giving that researcher a raise, because her researcher is struggling with the cost of living. We have a cost of living crisis. We have a mental health crisis. We have so many things happening in this country that need to be addressed, and I do not know how Tommy Douglas would feel about the coalition. I think the hon. colleague—
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/27/22 11:10:21 a.m.
- Watch
I will allow the hon. member to respond.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first off, the great researcher is the Library of Parliament. I thank it for that excellent information. That is an aside.
Tommy Douglas would be absolutely astounded at the fact that the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, did not deliver the health care transfers they promised they would. In fact, they cut them. I think Tommy Douglas would be appalled at the idea of the Conservatives wanting to pit communities against communities and say that somehow, because there is a need for health care, for mental health, we do not need dental services. On this side, we New Democrats are saying that all those services need to be provided, and the government could afford it if we would just tax the rich.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
