SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-31

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022
Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2 (Targeted Support for Households)
  • Summary: This bill is called the Cost of Living Relief Act, and it focuses on providing support for dental care and rental housing. Part 1 of the bill establishes the Dental Benefit Act, which creates an interim dental benefit for parents of children under 12 years old. This benefit provides financial support for dental care services received by eligible children from October 2022 to June 2024. Part 2 of the bill establishes the Rental Housing Benefit Act, which provides a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible individuals who have paid rent in 2022 for their main residence. Part 3 of the bill includes related amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, and the Excise Act, 2001. These measures aim to provide relief and support to individuals and families in managing the cost of living expenses related to dental care and rental housing.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea (233)
  • Nay (159)
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24
Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate. I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion. The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses. Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024. Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion. The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows: Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House. Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill. If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12. Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that: it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order... The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few. The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.
809 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47. Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation. I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi. Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times. Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished. Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed. I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians. We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46. We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit. We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45. I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House. I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard. We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed. I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break. What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—
888 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 189 - May/2/23
Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)
  • May/2/23 12:05:25 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, I somewhat disagree with what my colleague just said about the NDP always being prepared to support housing measures. Before Christmas, we voted on Bill C-31, which sought to send a $500 cheque to everyone who earns less than $20,000 a year and puts more than 30% of their income toward housing. Most tenant advocacy organizations in Quebec criticized this measure, saying that it was the kind of thing a right-wing government would do. The government was just sending out cheques so that it could say that it was helping people. That does not build housing. The government spent a lot of money sending out those one-time cheques. Obviously, they were good for people who need housing and who do not have a lot of money. However, the government could have taken that money and built housing units so that, in a few years' time, more disadvantaged people could have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.
168 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 141 - Dec/5/22
Question No. 885—
Questioner: Eric Duncan
With regard to the Globe and Mail report published on October 17, 2022, that the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) knew of Laith Marouf's derogatory tweets a month before the contract with the Community Media Advocacy Centre was cancelled: (a) on what day did the PMO first become aware of the derogatory tweets; (b) who was the first person at the PMO to become aware of the tweet, and how did that person become aware of it; (c) what is the detailed timeline of any action taken within the PMO after it was informed of the tweets; and (d) is the PMO aware of any other derogatory or unacceptable tweets from entities which were awarded government contracts, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) which entities, (ii) the nature of the tweets, (iii) the date the PMO became aware, (iv) the value of the contract, (v) the date the contract was cancelled, if it was cancelled?
Question No. 886—
Questioner: Michael Cooper
With regard to the government's response to three police stations set up in Toronto by the Fuzhou Public Security Bureau, representing the government of China: (a) when did the government first become aware of their existence; (b) why didn't the government take any action to stop the establishment of these police stations; (c) what specific action, if any, will the government take to shut down these police stations and what is the timeline for such action; (d) has the RCMP opened any criminal investigations in relation to the actions of the Fuzhou Public Security Bureau or individuals acting on behalf of the bureau, and, if so, what is the status of any such investigation; and (e) is the government aware of the Fuzhou Public Security Bureau, or any other entity acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party, setting up police stations or other similar types of operations elsewhere in Canada, and, if so, what are the details, including the locations and names of the entities?
Question No. 888—
Questioner: Pierre Paul-Hus
With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many government employees have been found to have made fraudulent claims for the CERB; (b) what amount of money is represented by the fraudulent claims in (a); (c) of the employees in (a), how many were (i) terminated, (ii) disciplined, but not terminated, broken down by type of discipline, (iii) not disciplined; (d) to date, how much of the fraudulent claim money has been (i) recovered, (ii) not yet recovered, (iii) written off; and (e) does the government plan to prosecute any of the individuals who made the fraudulent claims, and, if not, why not?
Question No. 892—
Questioner: Philip Lawrence
With regard to sanctions imposed on Russian individuals in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine: (a) what is the total number of individuals sanctioned to date; (b) of the individuals in (a), how many (i) have assets in Canada which have been seized, (ii) do not have any known assets in Canada; (c) what is the total number of entities sanctioned to date; (d) of the entities sanctioned in (c), how many (i) have assets in Canada which have been seized, (ii) do not have any known assets in Canada; and (e) what is the value of assets seized to date from (i) individuals, (ii) entities?
Question No. 893—
Questioner: Stephen Ellis
With regard to the dental care provisions in Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing: (a) were the provincial or territorial ministers of Health consulted on these measures, and, if so, what are the specific details, including (i) who was consulted, (ii) how they were consulted, (iii) the dates of the consultations; and (b) were the provisions on the agenda for any federal, provincial, and territorial ministers' meetings, and, if so, which ones and on what dates?
Question No. 896—
Questioner: Raquel Dancho
With regard to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms): (a) what are the details of all studies, surveys and focus groups conducted by the government and related to the effectiveness of the measures contained in the bill, including, for each (i) who conducted the study, (ii) the type of study (focus group, survey, etc.), (iii) the number of participants, (iv) the participant demographics, (v) the questions asked and results, (vi) the methodology used, (vii) the website where findings are available to the public, if applicable; and (b) what are the details of each contract pertaining to (a), including, for each, (i) the vendor, (ii) the date of the contract, (iii) the value, (iv) which studies, surveys or focus groups were connected to the contract, (v) a description of goods or services, (vi) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?
Question No. 898—
Questioner: Marilyn Gladu
With regard to the impact of rising interest rates on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC): what are the CMHC's projections on the number, total value, and percentage of CMHC insured mortgage loans that will be in a default situation based on (i) current interest rates, (ii) higher interest rates, broken down by 50 basis point intervals?
2854 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 134 - Nov/24/22
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, I take a lot of time writing my notes, but to get off that for a second, at the request of my colleague, there was in fact a carbon price seven years ago, just not in his home province of Alberta. In my home province of B.C., there absolutely was a price on carbon, and guess what. During that period, British Columbia had the fastest-growing economy in the country at the same time as we had a carbon price. That is just some food for thought before I get into my extensive notes. Our government understands that many Canadians are worried about our country's economy and that we are facing a global slowdown due to global challenges of high inflation and higher interest rates. However, it is important to remember that inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. Indeed, it is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, Putin's illegal war on Ukraine and the snarled supply chains that are affecting so many people and businesses right around the world. The good news, though, is that no country is better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than those of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 11.1% and Germany, at 10.4%. We rely on Stats Canada to do those calculations. Also, our country has a AAA credit rating and has had the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year. That is alongside the lowest deficit- and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened that advantage over the course of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is also near its record low, and 500,000 more Canadians are working today than before the pandemic. We do appreciate, though, that this is a difficult time for families, friends and of course our neighbours. That is why we are now moving forward with targeted measures, including new ones introduced in the fall economic statement. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest-free, including those currently being repaid. We are also continuing to implement our government's affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. For example, with Bill C-31 having recently received royal assent, we are moving forward with the creation of the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with annual incomes of less than $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Also, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month, and I thank my friend opposite for supporting that measure. These are targeted measures that help make life more affordable for Canadians who need it the most, while being careful not to add fuel to the inflationary fire. When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting more money back into the pockets of most Canadians. Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; it is an economic necessity. Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. The Conservatives regularly conflate the increased cost in global commodity prices with a price on pollution, but this is a fundamental error in practice. In B.C., for example, the carbon price has increased by only two cents per litre over the last three years while the price of gas has increased by over a dollar. That means the Conservatives are regularly ignoring 98% of the real problem. They also ignore the fact that the federal carbon price is revenue-neutral and that it actually makes life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families through the climate action rebate.
682 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 133 - Nov/23/22
Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)
  • Nov/23/22 2:55:40 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a viable alternative to fighting inflation. Two specific responsible measures will be implemented, thanks to the recent passage of Bill C-31: help for Canadians to pay their rents and support for their children to be able to receive proper dental care. While the Conservatives think Bitcoin and buzzwords will solve inflation, we on this side will always stand on the side of supporting the middle class.
74 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 133 - Nov/23/22
Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)
  • Nov/23/22 2:55:04 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition leader's solution of investing in volatile cryptocurrency as a means to opt out of inflation is reckless. If Canadians had followed his advice, their life savings would now be decimated. The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan just said it will have to write off its $95-million investment in FTX, the crypto exchange that collapsed last week. Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative, responsible policies to make life more affordable for Canadians?
79 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22
  • Nov/18/22 12:15:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Question No. 846—
Questioner: Stephanie Kusie
With regard to the government's response to the report by the City of Calgary's corporate planning and financial services, which indicated that the federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations that would increase electricity prices in Alberta by $45 billion over 15 years: has the government's analysis also reached the same conclusion, and, if not, what are the government's estimates with regard to the proposed regulations' effect on Alberta's electricity prices?
Question No. 850—
Questioner: Michelle Ferreri
With regard to the interim dental benefit provisions in Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing: (a) what are the estimated costs to administer the dental program (i) in the 2022-23 fiscal year, (ii) throughout the interim program, from October 2022 to June 2024; and (b) what is the breakdown, by standard object, of (a)(i) and (ii)?
467 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)
  • Nov/18/22 12:05:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Madam Speaker, it is a real honour and privilege to stand on behalf of the Minister of Health today and thank and congratulate the member for Pontiac for her hard work and advocacy, particularly for Canadians living in rural communities across the country. Indeed, with the royal assent to Bill C-31, over half a million kids will visit the dentist this and next year, kids who do not have dental insurance and otherwise would not have been able to visit the dentist. This is an affordability measure. This is a health care measure. This is how we take care of families on this side of the House. This will have positive impacts across this country, including for families right across the river in Pontiac.
125 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22
Mrs. Sophie Chatel (Pontiac, Lib.)
  • Nov/18/22 12:04:45 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Madam Speaker, I also want to highlight the great news we received yesterday that Bill C-31 received royal assent. While the Conservatives opposed the bill, to prevent kids from receiving affordable dental care this year, the government stood up for Canadian families and put forward real solutions to make life more affordable. These are solutions, not slogans. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health highlight how the government is delivering on dental care for Canadian families and also for families in my riding?
86 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)
  • Nov/17/22 4:55:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.
43 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22
Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, as the Canadian economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenge of high inflation and higher interest rates, our government understands that many Canadians are worried. They are certainly not relieved by the speech they just heard, but it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon. It is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic. Despite the Conservative leader's continued attempts to minimize the effects of the war in Ukraine, inflation has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by the supply chain challenges that are affecting people and businesses, frankly, right around the world. Fortunately, there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Indeed, Canada has the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and we have maintained our position as the G7 country with the lowest net debt and deficit-to-GDP ratios. Our country has a AAA credit rating, a recognition of our strong fiscal position. Canada also has an unemployment rate near its record low, as 500,000 more Canadians are working today than were before the pandemic. While Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than that of many of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 10.1%, and Germany, at 10.4%, we appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for many Canadians. That is why we are moving forward with our affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. It is already putting more money back into the pockets of the most vulnerable Canadians and those who need it the most. While the Conservatives continue to oppose these compassionate measures, we will continue to be there for Canadians with support that has been carefully designed to avoid making inflation worse. For example, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month. Despite Conservative efforts to oppose and block our compassionate plan, with Bill C-31, we are proposing to create the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 and families with annual incomes under $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Following the fall economic statement, we are also moving forward with Bill C-32 to make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest free, including those currently being repaid. Canadians can count on our government to continue running a tight fiscal ship. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that all of these support measures are targeted, fiscally responsible and continue to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio. When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting money back into the pockets of most Canadians. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that unfortunately climate action is no longer a theoretically political debate. It is an economic necessity. Canadians all know that the Conservatives do not have a serious plan to tackle climate change, which means they also do not have a plan to grow the Canadian economy. Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing that climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. Our plan makes life more affordable, grows the economy, fights climate change and puts Canada in a great position to benefit from the growing global opportunity that is clean growth and from the creation of hundreds of thousands of good-paying, sustainable jobs.
622 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 122 - Nov/1/22
Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege to stand in the House tonight to address concerns from my colleague. I remember back to about a year ago when the member ran for the Liberal Party and I knocked on doors with him. He ran on a commitment to price carbon, and it was welcomed at the doors, as it is welcomed across our country. Canadians know that pollution should not be free. Canadians know that things like cap and trade, a price on pollution and, indeed, carbon pricing are a necessary foundation in a proper environmental platform. At the time, the member was also proud of that platform, so I am not sure where he is going with this, but I am indeed really proud of the fact that for seven years now, our government has been putting forward real solutions and measures to help middle-class Canadians and those who have worked so hard to join them. We have introduced and implemented measures that have helped grow the economy. We have created jobs and we have created a fair and more level playing field for Canadians across the country. We understand that rising prices, which we are seeing around the world, are also affecting Canadians across the country. However, high inflation is a global phenomenon. It is not limited to us here in Canada. It is mostly caused by the war in Ukraine and various other supply chain disruptions. While it is not a made-in-Canada problem, we have a made-in-Canada solution to help those who need it the most. For example, now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive an additional $2.5 billion in support. Over 11 million households will receive a doubling of that GST credit in the coming weeks. Actually, I believe it is this Friday. Also, with Bill C-31 we are proposing to create a Canada dental benefit for children under 12, which will deliver $1,300 over the next few years in supports so that families can pay for their kids to go and see a dentist. The bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program, which already provides up to $2,500 to Canada's most vulnerable and lowest-income families who are renting. This will increase it by $500 and put that in the pockets of nearly two million renters who are struggling to pay their rent. The member for Spadina—Fort York can certainly recognize the impacts these measures will have for Canadians in his riding. Many of them are indeed struggling to make ends meet, and these measures will help. Later this week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will release the fall economic statement, which will lay out some of the steps our government will take toward a brighter future for our country. When it comes to the clean fuel regulations and pollution pricing, I would remind my colleague of the importance of continuing to work on the green transition while doing everything we can to make life more affordable in this country. I spent some considerable time in the riding of my colleague. The fact is, his constituents are concerned about the impacts of climate change. His constituents were disappointed when Premier Doug Ford cancelled cap and trade, and his constituents were relieved when the federal government stepped in with supports. I just got off the phone with a constituent who had valid questions about the price on pollution. As I explained it to him, this is a backstop program for provinces that do not have a plan to fight climate change. Previous to this, the province of Ontario had a $3-billion program. That was a revenue program for the province, called cap and trade, and unfortunately Doug Ford scrapped it. That is illegal. Every province and territory is bound by law to have a plan to fight climate change and to price pollution accordingly. The simple truth is that climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate. It is an economic necessity. Our government has a plan that will save the planet. It will create growth and make life more affordable all at the same time. We will continue to move forward with that plan. In conclusion, I would say that every single member, all 338 in the House, ran on a commitment to price carbon in the last election. There were a couple of versions of it, but it was a unanimous position—
764 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
The Deputy Speaker
  • Oct/27/22 7:18:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
I declare the motion carried. The Deputy Speaker: It being 7:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 18, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:18 p.m.)
46 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
Mr. Todd Doherty
  • Oct/27/22 6:33:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, I have taken part in a lot of committees. As our colleague can attest to, I absolutely lost my mind the night that this was taking place and that what we were witnessing was taking place. It was so unparliamentary. Clearly, as I stated in my speech, the deal was done, and anybody who brought forward any type of amendment, who was not part of the NDP-Liberal coalition, was going to get shut out. We offered to bring more witnesses to the table. We asked for more time to study the bill. We asked to do our job. We offered to sit through the weekend to study this bill and bring witnesses, but we were shut down every step of the way.
125 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)
  • Oct/27/22 6:33:06 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, sometimes there is a lot of invective thrown around in the House. Earlier, those on the NDP side of the House said we were playing politics with families. The experience I had at the Standing Committee on Health was that the Bloc Québécois wanted to hear witnesses and work for Quebeckers. The Bloc wanted the bill to include people who had been left behind by the NDP. We were prevented from doing our job. I would like the member who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Health to confirm whether it was us, the real opposition parties, who obstructed the bill or whether it was the Liberals with the NDP who prevented us from being inclusive and doing our work properly. Who has hindered the parliamentary business of the House, them or us?
141 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
Mr. Todd Doherty
  • Oct/27/22 6:32:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my colleague. I said in my intervention that Canadians need a leg up, that single parents and families that are living dollar to dollar and are having a hard time making ends meet need a leg up. They need a plan. They get this top-up, but then what? How do they live for the rest of the year? In my intervention, I said that a plan needs to be in place. While this money may make things better at the moment, there is not a long-term plan in place that can truly make a difference. That is something we have been struggling to get the government to do.
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)
  • Oct/27/22 6:30:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, I very much support Bill C-31. I have heard over and over again that people get dental care if they need it in this country. I have not shared any personal stories up until now, but I have enough respect for the member for Cariboo—Prince George to say that when I was a single mom and earning under $30,000 per year, I put the priority on getting my daughter to a dentist. I never could afford dental care. I have had a lot of teeth pulled out, and when I got to be able to have some money I went in and got replacements, because it really got in the way of being able to be successful in any way, not to be able to speak properly. I certainly could not pronounce in French “vérificatrice générale”. That was impossible with my situation. I am urging members across the way to vote for this bill, despite the fact that I agree with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George that an important piece of legislation should not be pushed through in two hours in committee. That is offensive.
211 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
Mr. Todd Doherty
  • Oct/27/22 6:16:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that, because while the Liberals will go on and on saying that people are heckling them, you will notice that I did not even acknowledge them. They can say anything they want to say. It does not bother me at all, because what they are saying is total hogwash. They are triggering. What Bill C-31 is called in the political sphere is a wedge issue, because Liberals are using it to score political points. The new Conservative leader went out of his way to tell Canadians that we care for them. We want to let everyday, regular people know that we actually have a plan and we care. We want people to have more money in their pockets. What we have seen from the Liberal government and the NDP, which has propped the Liberals up all the way, is that they are going to triple the price for food, triple the price for fuel and triple the price for heating. Yes, members heard that correctly, and I will repeat it for the Liberal-NDP coalition. Its members are going to triple, triple, triple prices. I know they hate that, so I said it again. Conservatives want life to be more affordable. What is shameful is that we know our friends in Atlantic Canada are struggling after having just gone through a horrendous natural disaster, a weather event. They are struggling. Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada are begging the government to please cancel raising the carbon tax, because they are struggling. We also know from a report that was just released today that 1.5 million Canadians accessed food banks last month. That is an increase of 35% year over year. That is happening under the Liberal government's watch. When we tell Liberals that, they blame everybody else but themselves. I will agree that inflation can be caused by a number of things, including foreign issues, but it starts at home. The government has the keys to the bank. As our friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle said in his great speech, it starts here at home. Over $176 billion of spending that Liberals say was for COVID had nothing to do with COVID, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report states that today. We do not want to see people evicted, and we do not want to see kids suffering in pain because they cannot afford a dentist. We have focused the majority of our questions in question period, since electing our new leader, on affordability. While the Liberals and NDP want to spend, spend, spend, we have been talking about making an actual difference in people's lives. Bill C-31 is not about providing access to dental care or making rent more affordable. It is about maintaining power. Let us be very clear that it is about the Prime Minister's tenuous, at best, hold on his party. There are wolves at the door. They are lining up, getting their soldiers and their organization together to take over power and be the next leaders of the Liberal Party, because the Prime Minister is struggling to hold on to his power. It is about an NDP leader who is also struggling with his own internal party politics. If members of the NDP-Liberal coalition were concerned about dental care or rent, they would have wanted a fulsome debate at committee. They would have wanted a fulsome debate here in this chamber. They would have wanted to ensure the best legislation possible. Let me throw this out. This is not a plan or a program. Programs have checks and balances in place, and this has none. Legislation that would create a program to help kids who are in pain and that would help single moms pay their rent or go to a dentist is a program. This is not the case. I have been a member of Parliament for seven years and have sat in on countless bill reviews. I have sat in on countless committee meetings, and what I witnessed Monday night was unbelievable. My colleague from Mirabel will attest to this. What we saw was that the government gave committee members literally two hours to study a piece of legislation, two hours that will commit the Canadian government to $10 billion of spending. In fact, just talking right now about this actually triggers me even more. It makes me more angry. The government voted down my hon. colleague from Mirabel's amendments for a certain clause for the reason that committees cannot attach further financial obligations to the government. The amendments were voted down, yet when the NDP brought amendments to this piece of legislation to committee with attached financial obligations, the chair ruled those in order. As a matter of fact, the Liberals and the NDP rammed them through. As parliamentarians we have a job to do. We were sent here by the people from our ridings to represent them. We were sent here to get the best legislation possible. We were sent here to work together. I have stood in the House so much over this time to talk about mental health and to talk about health. I think all colleagues will agree I take a very non-partisan approach to this. If we can work together to get things done that is the best for Canadians. What we have seen with the government and its friends, the NDP, the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, is that they do not care what the rest of us and the rest of Canadians think. They will stand in the House and put on a great show for video clips and social media, yet they are misleading Canadians every step of the way. I understand that partisan politics can get in the way. I know that when we are in this chamber sometimes the level of debate get pretty low. That said, I have always believed in the committee process. I have always believed that committees are where we as parliamentarians do our best work. At least, that is what I had hoped. I remember a time at the fisheries committee a few years ago when there were a number of amendments that we thought would make the bill better. At that time I was getting up daily in question period to hammer the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the clam scam. Does everybody remember the clam scam? It was when the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gave a lucrative contract to a former member of Parliament, a former Liberal member of Parliament, and possibly even some family members of the fisheries minister. That meant that jobs were lost in the community at Grand Bank. I fought tirelessly for them and not one member from the Atlantic Canada caucus stood up to do that. Why? It was because they were silenced. They were muzzled by the front bench. When the bill came to committee with some amendments, I reached out to the hon. members from across the way and told them some of our concerns. We were at it every day in question period, but when it came to getting that bill right, we actually got the work done. We got those amendments passed. That is an example of a committee working in the best interests of Canadians. At committee, the members were listened to. We heard from over 20 witnesses. We heard from the minister. We heard from officials. When it came to doing the clause-by-clause, the members of the committee agreed with some of our amendments and we managed to pass a number of them. We worked together to have a better piece of legislation and Canadians were better for it. Did we get everything we wanted? No, we did not, but we got a few. We had an opportunity to actually study the bill, not like what we saw on Monday night. We were told we had to have the amendments in before we actually got a chance to hear from the witnesses. On Monday we were supposed to analyze a bill that was going to spend, as I said, $10 billion. Do members know how many days we were allowed to study that bill? It was one day for two hours. Do members know how many witnesses we had? We had five, with two ministers who could not answer a question if their lives depended on it. They could not answer these questions. When we offered thoughtful questions to the officials, they were stymied. It was two hours and then we had to immediately move into clause-by-clause. Was that really offering parliamentarians of all stripes an opportunity to do their best work for Canadians? I would offer that it was not. It was very discouraging. I get that the Liberal-NDP coalition members do not care about inflation. They do not care about budgets. They do not care about robbing Peter to pay Paul. They do not really care about families. They think the government has this magic pot of gold or magic pot of money that all this money comes from, or perhaps it is a tree. It is probably not a tree, but seriously, this is such an utter sham. It really, truly is, and it is more of what we see with this Liberal-NDP coalition. The worst part of all this is that the Liberal and NDP members of the committee attempted to usurp the government's power and increase the spending. I mentioned that. Members heard me correctly. After a negative ruling by the chair on two Bloc amendments, if I remember correctly, that would have increased spending, the coalition members introduced an NDP amendment to spend even more than $10 billion. There was no consultation, no cabinet approval and no authorization. They just agreed to add more money. When the chair ruled them out of order, they challenged the chair and they rammed it through. We voted them down and they amended the bill anyway. Of course, we objected. We pointed out that this would require a royal recommendation, but they did not want to hear that. They did not want to debate dental care for kids. They did not want to debate money for rent. The Liberal members of the committee supported the NDP amendment because they did not want to lose power. They did not want to jeopardize their agreement with the third party. The fix was in before the bill even came to committee. The fix was in to get this passed without scrutiny, without accountability and without care for kids and families. When the member for Vancouver East moved her amendment to increase the rental eligibility, the chair correctly ruled the motion inadmissible. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states this on page 772. I know I do not have to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to read it into the record anyway. It states: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Despite this clear and concise ruling, the Liberals and NDP voted down the chair and proceeded, regardless. It was not until the bill was reported back to the House on Tuesday that the mistake was fixed. I am going to finish with this. The Canadian Dental Association said this: The single best way to quickly improve oral health and increase access to dental care is to invest in, and enhance, existing provincial and territorial dental programs. These programs are significantly underfunded and are almost exclusively financed by provincial and territorial governments. We are surprised by today’s announcement that the federal government is considering a new, large-scale, federal dental program. It will be important to ensure that any new initiatives do not disrupt access to dental care for the large majority of Canadians who already have dental coverage through employer-provided health benefits. The Liberal member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River summed it up best on Monday night with his second question. He admitted that this bill was nothing really about dental care. He said this: There are a lot of costs in life. Dental is certainly one of them, but you have to buy your kid shoes, you have to buy them food and you have to pay for their minor league hockey. These are all costs for families. I do not disagree with the member. Families could always use more money, and we could use a program that has checks and balances in place so that this money would actually get to kids and families who need it the most, and so that it would be consistent and not a one-time top-up that the government is going to claw back anyway. We also heard through our study that first nations children are not eligible for this program.
2187 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 119 - Oct/27/22
Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)
  • Oct/27/22 6:13:29 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, folks who are watching this debate are seeing political theatrics at its best. We just heard from the member for Vancouver East and the member for Vancouver Kingsway. The member for Vancouver East has been in office for 29 years, and the member for Vancouver Kingsway since 2008, and prior to that he worked for a union, so they both have had dental care. The member for Vancouver Kingsway brought up a good point that, at the health committee, members from the opposition did bring amendments through. Our hon. colleague from the Bloc brought some great amendments through. He is the member for Mirabel. We then saw the costly coalition gang up and deny these amendments, just like they do all the other times. As a matter fact, they were ruled out of order, yet the NDP amendments were ruled in order. This did not take place until the next day, but the Speaker of the House actually had to rule those amendments out of order, yet we still see the political theatrics of this group. It really is shameful. Let me begin by saying there is not one member in His Majesty's official opposition who does not believe Canadian families need more help. There is not one person in my party who does not want to see Canadians' lives get easier and more affordable. There is not one member of our party who does not want to see life made easier for kids and parents. No one on this side believes kids should not have access to dental care. We have heard all kinds of accusations from the Liberal-NDP coalition today on this, and it is absolute hogwash. I would use stronger language, because them speaking kind of gets me— An hon. member: It triggers you. Mr. Todd Doherty: Mr. Speaker, “triggers” is a good word. An hon. member: No one is triggered but you. Mr. Todd Doherty: Mr. Speaker, they trigger it, but that is what they want. That is exactly what they want— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
349 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border