Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to address Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

In specific, I wish to speak to the bill’s provision with regard to dental benefits for Canadian children. I don’t think — especially after what we’ve heard here today — that there need be any doubt that proper dental care for kids is a fundamental question of public health and disease prevention. We claim to have universal health care in this country, but as long as some families are forced to forgo timely dental care for their children, our boasts are a tad hollow.

I was lucky when I was the parent of a young child to work for a company that provided excellent dental benefits to its employees, but I was not always so lucky. As a young adult, I went for years with no dental insurance. I was working full-time as a journalist, first for a small magazine and then for the CBC, but I had no dental benefits. In fact, I worked full-time as a producer with the CBC for six years with no dental plan and a low enough salary to make trips to the dentist seem like a luxury. As soon as I was hired on by the Edmonton Journal, I rushed to the dentist to make up for all those years when I had no cleanings or checkups. I know all too well that thousands of working Canadians and Canadian families simply do not have the means to make regular trips to the dentist a part of their budget.

So I applaud the intentions of Bill C-31. Here we are after all, the day after Halloween. Who amongst us would want to deny cleanings and X-rays and fillings to all the princesses, lions, monsters, firemen and pirates eating their Halloween candy today? But I confess, I do have some misgivings about the jurisdictional complexities of this bill and its interconnection — or lack of interconnection — to various provincial and First Nations dental programs. I want to put those concerns on the record because Bill C-31 is obviously meant to be just the first step in the creation of a more ambitious national dental care program.

Health, as we have all said today, is an area of provincial jurisdiction. As we roll forward, we need to be sure that provinces, to the best of our ability, are at the table as partners.

These are times when certain provincial governments are being even more than usually prickly on this subject.

Last week, on October 27, Alberta’s new premier, Danielle Smith, released, via Twitter, a letter to all her ministers asking them to make what she called a “united front” against federal policies that would, in her words, “threaten Alberta’s interests,” even if that meant rejecting federal government grants for various programs, especially targeted transfers. She further instructed her cabinet to insist that Ottawa respect constitutional division of powers, specifically related to health care and other social programs, and to seek, instead, to accept money only by “unconditional block transfers” to be spent entirely at Alberta’s discretion.

She further noted that when unconditional block transfers — money with no strings attached — were not on offer, Alberta would seek to opt out of new federal programs.

And if Ottawa does not, in the premier’s words, “honour co-operative federalism,” then, said Premier Smith, Alberta would refuse to participate in consultations with the federal government.

Now, please do not confuse me with Premier Smith. We are both, indeed, former newspaper columnists turned politicians, but we have rather different perspectives. I wanted to quote from this letter, not because I share all its views but because I want us to be fully alert to the complicated political tenor of the moment and to be alert to the future challenges of attempting to put together some kind of jury-rigged dental plan using the Canada Revenue Agency to do an end run around provincial jurisdiction.

Giving money directly to families, for all the reasons Senator Omidvar mentioned, does seem like an attractive option, but it comes with real political risks.

Of course, the program laid out in Bill C-31 would be of huge benefit to thousands of Alberta families. Alberta does have the Alberta Child Health Benefit which, as Senator Seidman explains, covers basic and preventative services like fillings, X‑rays, examinations and teeth cleaning. But the income cap for a couple with two children is $36,634, whereas this new federal benefit would be extended to families making up to $90,000 so that many more working families would be covered.

But if we don’t properly coordinate future federal and provincial programs, we are going to end up in a jurisdictional and political quagmire. We don’t want to duplicate existing services. We certainly don’t want to leave some families worse off than they were before. We also don’t want tremendous inequality across the country, where this top-up gives some provinces tremendously strong dental programs and leaves families in other provinces struggling.

Then there’s the question of how this program would coordinate with the one offered to First Nations and Inuit families via Indigenous Services Canada’s own NIHB — Non‑Insured Health Benefits — program, which provides comprehensive dental care, including orthodontics, to Inuit Canadians and those with Indian status.

Now, I’ve been told that First Nations and Inuit families can still receive the dental benefit proposed in Bill C-31, but only if they incur out-of-pocket expenses that are not covered by the NIHB — and the NIHB covers almost everything — and only if they file their tax returns. You don’t need much imagination to contemplate the kinds of complications that might ensue if some families claim the new benefit in mistaken good faith and then have it clawed back via audit. Given the percentage of Indigenous families that already live in poverty, it would be ironic indeed if Bill C-31 actually did little or nothing to help them, or ended up in some way undermining the future of the dental benefits they already have.

I trust that, while this bill is at committee, some of these questions can be explored in more depth. Thank you, hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator McCallum, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Duncan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Clement, for the third reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), as amended.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc:

That Bill S-236, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), as amended, be not read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer concerning his office’s fiscal analysis on the bill; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than November 15, 2022.

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dagenais:

That the motion in amendment be not now adopted, but that it be amended by:

1.adding the words “additional witnesses, including” between the words “to hear from” and “Parliamentary Budget Officer” in the first paragraph; and

2.by deleting the final paragraph.

Hon. Paula Simons moved:

That the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on October 27, 2022, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Transport.

She said: Honourable senators, I would say that it is a most excellent report. We worked very hard on it, and it has been well received by the people of British Columbia.

It was not a fortuitous thing, but the release of the report happened to coincide with the arrival of another atmospheric river in British Columbia, so we were able to garner a fair bit of press attention by unhappy accident. I would like to move that we adopt the report. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned, on division.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That a Special Senate Committee on Human Capital and the Labour Market be appointed until the end of the current session, to which may be referred matters relating to human capital, labour markets, and employment generally;

That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that four members constitute a quorum; and

That the committee be empowered to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate; to send for persons, papers and records; to hear witnesses and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee.