- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Apr/29/24 1:04:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the announcements I am very proud of is that the federal government has recognized the importance of not having children in schools who are learning on empty stomachs.
We came up with a national food program, which is going to help an estimated 400,000 children. The Bloc does not like it because it says it is not our jurisdiction. I would counter by saying that a caring national government should be concerned about the children in our schools. If we are in a position to be able to assist children and have them learn on fuller stomachs, we should be doing that.
Would the member acknowledge, at the very least, that the national government does play a role? Not all jurisdictions in Canada may have the same attitude in terms of providing full stomachs to kids going to school.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 12:33:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think it is important throughout this debate, because it is going to be a very emotional debate, no doubt, to remember that it is inappropriate for any member on any side to impute the motives of another member. Making a statement that one member is in favour or suggesting in any fashion that they are in favour of children being killed is inappropriate and unparliamentary. I would suggest it does nothing to maintain decorum. I say that for what it is worth. It is something that needs to be taken into consideration throughout the day.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 3:43:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the second major investment the government has put into the children of Canada. The first one was the Canada child benefit, which lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by making substantial reforms. Today it is making child care more affordable.
I must admit this is the first time I heard the idea the leader of the Green Party put on the table, and I look forward to no doubt having more discussion on that particular issue. I do not know too much about it.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to such an important piece of legislation.
It is interesting to note the mechanisms that were used in order to prevent debate on this piece of legislation. It is fairly well established that, as a government, we have been very aggressive on the issue of trying to provide child care to Canadians. We have had a number of ministers work with different provincial entities and other stakeholders across the country in order to develop a plan that would be well received by Canadians.
Having achieved that plan, the work was then to start by working with provinces and getting agreements put into place. Many provinces actually have $10-a-day child care because of the government's proactive approach to providing good-quality child care. Manitoba is one of those provinces. In fact, it was not that long ago that we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg North and visit Stanley Knowles School, where he got to witness first-hand some of the benefactors of quality child care. That was in just one school in the riding of Winnipeg North. We saw children, parents and administrators of good-quality child care.
When we look at the dialogue that had taken place, see the individual efforts by the child care providers, and see the smiles on the faces of children and their parents and guardians who bring them to that facility, we get a better appreciation as to why child care is so very important.
Here is the issue I have. Virtually every member of the Conservative Party who speaks nowadays has been programmed to talk about their four priorities. The one I want to focus a little attention on is the priority they classify as “fixing the budget”. It is important that people really understand what Conservatives mean when they say “fixing the budget”. From my perspective, those are code words about a Conservative hidden agenda in terms of what a Conservative government would actually do. We need to be aware of that. The Conservatives need to start sharing what their true feelings, thoughts and policies are on very important public policy positions.
Earlier today, in the debate on this, one of the Conservatives stood up and was very critical of Bill C-35. I posed a question, asking if the member could be very clear, because the Conservative Party has not been clear on the child care issue and on Bill C-35. If we look at what Conservatives were saying during the election, the position they took was that at the end of the day, they were going to rip up the child care proposals that the Liberal government was talking about just prior to the election. That is what they were telling Canadians.
Shortly after the election, Conservatives started to waffle a little, as the government started to actually get provinces to sign on to it. Whether it was provinces like my home province of Manitoba or provinces like Ontario, what we witnessed is that from all regions of the country, provinces and territories were buying into the national program. That caused a few issues to the Conservative Party members, as they started to feel a little uncomfortable with what they were seeing during the last federal election.
Let us fast-forward to what is happening today and what we are hearing from the Conservative caucus. I asked a member who spoke on it specifically what the Conservative Party's position is on $10-a-day child care. It was pretty straightforward, but the answer was far from straightforward. It did not provide any clarity whatsoever.
That is why I say people need to be aware of the “fix the budget” bumper sticker or theme that the Conservative Party is telling Canadians. What it really means is that programs we are talking about today, programs that have the support of New Democrats, members of the Bloc and Green Party members will be on the chopping block. The Conservatives do not support them. They might say something at different points in time, but they do not support the initiative that has been taken by this government.
The contrast between the Conservatives and the government is very compelling when it comes to social programming. We have seen that from day one. When we think of how this government has been there to support Canadians, providing programs that have seen disposable incomes go up for seniors and families with children, we have witnessed the Conservative Party vote against those measures time and time again, right from the beginning.
We told families we would give the middle class a break and brought in a tax reduction for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted against that. When we brought in reforms to the Canada child benefit, the Conservative Party voted against them too. We brought in measures that ultimately prevented millionaires from receiving money and gave more money to those with lower incomes, and the Conservatives voted against them. We brought in enhancements to the guaranteed income supplement, and the Conservative Party voted against them.
Let us put that in perspective when the Conservatives tell us to fix the budget. Fixing the budget, to them, means balancing the budget. In order to balance the budget and axe the tax, they are really talking about cutting programs, cutting investments we have made to support Canadians.
We had another program announced earlier today. The Minister of Health put forward yet another comprehensive program to help Canadians. Just like the child care program is going to help with affordability, we now have a national pharmacare program, a program I have been advocating for many years. I have introduced many petitions over the last number of years on that issue, asking parliamentarians to recognize the importance of pharmacare. I am absolutely delighted to see the legislation before us today, but I am concerned. Much like what we are witnessing on Bill C-35, with the Conservatives being critical of it and having opposed child care in the past, I am concerned that other social programs, like pharmacare, are going to be on the chopping block when it comes to “fixing the budget”, their priority issue.
That is something I know the constituents of Winnipeg North, and I would argue Canadians as a whole, see, understand and appreciate the true value of. These are the types of programs that I think the Conservatives need to better understand, so that when they start talking about fixing the budget they can be a bit clearer as to the types of programs they are looking at cutting.
When I listen to what they are saying on child care today and what I heard them say during the last federal election, I am concerned about child care and the future of child care. I believe that is easily justified. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, talked about how when Ken Dryden travelled the country and brought forward to Parliament back then, a number of years ago, a national child care program, it ultimately was defeated at that time by the coalition of the NDP and the Stephen Harper Conservatives, which brought down the Liberal government. As a direct result, Stephen Harper killed the child care program back then. When he was elected to the chair of the Prime Minister's Office, it did not survive.
Therefore, I think it is important that we question whether, under the current Conservative leadership, which is even further to the right than Stephen Harper, we really believe the child care program is going to survive, and why it is absolutely critical that we have this legislation pass, because at the very least it would make that more difficult as the program becomes more established.
Why is this legislation so important? I would suggest that all we need to do is look at one of the treasures of being Canadian, which is the Canada Health Act. It ensured that Conservative governments in the future would be prevented from getting rid of it. The longer that act was in place, the more difficult it was for future governments to not support a national health care program.
I would argue that the same principle applies here, to Bill C-35. The longer Bill C-35 is part of Canadian law, and today Canadians already understand and appreciate the importance of a national child care program, the better I believe it will stand the test of time, so that future generations will in fact have affordable child care opportunities. That is why I believe Bill C-35 is such an important piece of legislation.
I am concerned about the short term, because it is the short-term thinking of the narrow-minded individuals who make up the Conservative Party today, which is further to the right than we have ever seen it, that I believe is a great threat to a national child care program, not to mention other programs that we have already put in place. The dental program that was rolled out last year for children is being rolled out this year for seniors and people with disabilities. These are good programs that are making a difference. These are the types of programs that I am genuinely concerned about with respect to what would happen if there was a change in government. That is why I believe it is important for us in government not just to talk about these types of initiatives, but also to bring in the legislation, because in the long term I believe these types of national programs are part of the reason we are building a Canadian identity we can all be very proud of. The best example of that is our health care system.
When we think of child care itself, all we need to do is take a look at the province of Quebec, which has had affordable child care for many years now. As a direct result of that, there is a higher percentage of workforce participation by women, which I believe is attributed to the child care policies of the Province of Quebec. It is more than just a social program; not only do children benefit because of a high-quality child care program, but so do the economy and the family unit.
I do not know how factual this next statement is, but I believe it is fairly accurate because it has been cited in the past that in the province of Quebec, women's participation in the workforce is the highest in North America. I do not know whether that is still the case today, but it amplifies the fact that providing affordable child care has a very real, tangible impact. Why would people not support that?
I hear the criticism coming from the other side, saying, “Well, what about the number of spaces and what about this and that other aspect?” However, we have to recognize that, much as in health care, there is a provincial jurisdictional issue, so there are some limitations to what Ottawa can do. We have been very careful in the way in which child care has been rolled out throughout the country, which is why there has been a great deal of discussion and negotiation with all of the provinces and territories and the many different stakeholders. It is absolutely critical that we get it right.
We expect to see, and members will see in the agreements with other jurisdictions, the current stock of $10-a-day child care spots not only being maintained but also being increased. I can say, in good part because of the funding that is coming from Ottawa, that we are going to see an increase in the actual number of spots in the province of Manitoba, where we have already achieved $10-a-day care well before the targeted dates that were established. Manitoba is benefiting from the national program today.
I can tell members opposite from the Conservative Party that the agreement that was signed in Manitoba was actually signed by Heather Stefanson's government, a Progressive Conservative government. It is the same sort of Progressive Conservative government under Doug Ford here in Ontario that actually signed an agreement. Therefore the program is coming not only from Ottawa and the literally hundreds of stakeholders and thousands of parents, but also from provinces of all political stripes that understand and appreciate the true value of a national child care program that is there to support parents.
Members opposite like to talk about quotes from some parents. However, I would suggest that they talk to those who are actually in the system today receiving this, and we are talking about tens of thousands throughout the country, in all regions, who are benefiting today because of a sound, progressive policy that is universally being accepted by different political parties in different levels of government.
2173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the many different types of issues on the floor of the House, and today we do that through Bill S-210.
The title of the legislation, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, sends a fairly powerful message. There is absolutely no doubt about that. When I think about the community I represent and the experiences I have had as a parliamentarian over the years with regard to this very sensitive issue, I suggest that it goes beyond pornography. What we are really talking about is the safety of our children.
We all have serious concerns with how the Internet has evolved, with access to the Internet and with what our young people are seeing on the Internet. I believe there is an onus and responsibility on all of us in that respect, not only at the national level but also at the provincial level. Even in our school system, we all have a sense of responsibility, not to mention the parents and guardians of children. We all have a very important role in recognizing that which quite often causes harm to the minds of our children, either directly or indirectly, and the impact it has, putting a child on a specific course in life.
I do not say that lightly. When I look at the legislation and think of the intimate images on the Internet, all I need to do is look at some of the streaming services, whether it is Netflix, Crave or the many others out there. I suspect that if we were to apply what is being suggested in this legislation, it could prove to be somewhat problematic. I do not know to what degree the sponsor of the bill has thought through the legislation itself. The title is great. The concern is serious. We are all concerned about it. However, when I think of the impact that this has on our children, I believe it is not just through pornography. Cyber-bullying is very real. We often hear of very tragic stories where a young person is bullied through the Internet.
We need a holistic approach to what we can do as legislators to protect the best interests of children. In looking at the legislation, there seems to be a mix of criminal and administrative law. On the one hand we are saying it is illegal, giving the impression that criminal law needs to deal with it, yet there is an administrative penalty being applied if someone has fallen offside. I see that as a bit of an issue that needs to be resolved.
However, the biggest issue we need to look at is why the bill is fairly narrow in its application with respect to harms to children. I used the example of cyber-bullying. It seems to me that the department has been very proactive and busy on a number of fronts, whether it is with the online news legislation or other legislation. I know departments are currently in the process of looking at legislation to bring forward in the new year that would have a more holistic approach to dealing with things that impact or harm young people. I suspect that through the departments, with the amount of consultation that has been done and continues to be done on the issue, we will see more solid legislation being provided.
In the legislation being proposed, issues arise, such as concerns dealing with the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy for us to say we want to ensure that young people watching these programs are at the age of majority. It is a difficult thing to ultimately administer. I am not aware of a country that has been successful at doing so. I am not convinced that the legislation being proposed would be successful at doing that.
In terms of the age of majority, I was citing earlier today how things can be very easily manipulated, such as by using VPN technology, which I must say I am not familiar with. Someone could be at their house and could somehow change their location to give the perception that instead of being in one community or neighbourhood, they are someplace thousands of miles away. There is also the whole idea of using identification that is not necessarily theirs. I will cite the example of teenagers being among friends when it comes time to get alcohol. False identification is often used or encouraged in certain areas by teenagers to acquire alcohol. To believe that there would not be any manipulation of the system would be wrong. Imagine a person getting information that then gets submitted as data points for a company and how harmful misinformation would be to the individual who has that identification.
To what degree has this legislation been worked on with the Privacy Commissioner? I suspect that the Privacy Commissioner might have something to say about the legislation. The difficulty that I have is in the name, Bill S-210, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. I believe that each and every one of us here today would understand that pornography for minors is not a good thing. It does have an impact.
I remember taking a course in sociology many years ago at university, and a test group was put to the side. One part of the test group had to watch hours and hours of pornography, and in the other group it did not occur. The groups were then brought together and the consequence was striking. The group that watched pornography was more open, to the degree that they did not think certain offences and the inappropriate treatment between sexual partners were all that bad.
This has an impact in a very real way. I understand the concern, but we should be broadening the concern to include things like cyber-bullying. We need to leave it to the department to bring forward more comprehensive and substantive legislation that would take out some of the conflicts and deal with issues from the Privacy Commissioner. It would ultimately be better for all of us.
1022 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am trying to be a little sympathetic to constituents of mine who have children and are not able to afford child care. For the first time, they can now look at maybe not having as much work, where one parent has to work in the evening and the other in the daytime and they are not necessarily able to make the connection they would like with their family unit.
I am suggesting that at the end of the day, this particular program, which has been achieved through a great deal of effort with different levels of government, is ultimately going to provide more opportunities that will be for the betterment of the child, the individual parent or guardian, the child care worker and Canadian society as a whole. That is the point that needs to be emphasized.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and speak to legislation that is very historic in nature. It is not too often that we see a national government taking an initiative as significant as the one we see today. What we are talking about are the core principles of what a national child care program will look like. It is the type of thing that I hope all members of this House will get behind.
Over the summer, I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Stanley Knowles School in the north end of Winnipeg. It has been providing child care and day care for the past 30 years, since its creation. What was special about this particular visit was that the Prime Minister was with me. We had the opportunity first-hand to engage with child care workers and parents, and I think he personally enjoyed being with the children.
We saw creativity around the tables as children would come up and start playing. We saw the interaction taking place between the children and staff. When we are in a child care facility and see it at work, we see a very caring attitude, one that is nurtured by love. They are not the biological parents; they are workers, but we can tell that their heart is in what they are doing.
I could also see that the Prime Minister was thoroughly enjoying the visit. I say that because I know, as we all should, that shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he made a strong indication as a feminist that he wanted to move forward on important issues for women and others, and child care is an important issue. It does so much to ensure that we get fuller participation in every aspect of our lives.
When we think about what kind of principles there are in child care, we are talking about access, affordability and inclusivity. We are talking about high-quality child care, and that is within this legislation. It is a framework of principles. I believe it does not matter where we go in Canada; we will find support for those principles, and for the first time, we have legislation that is putting them in place. It is setting out that framework.
We have seen the degree to which Canadians have fallen in love with the Canada Health Act and the many benefits that this legislation has brought to every citizen from coast to coast to coast. It was a true, national program, and we can look at the results it has delivered to people today. We love our health care system.
Let me suggest that the principles we are talking about today, even though we are debating them, have been talked about a great deal over the last number of years, virtually from day one when the leader of the Liberal Party became the Prime Minister. We have had a number of ministers raise the issues and have dialogue with provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, child care workers and all forms of stakeholders. They have a vested interest in a topic that all of us should be concerned about.
It is the future. It is for our young ones, the children, that we are enabling, as much as possible, that quality, accessibility, affordability and inclusivity for everyone. It is interesting. When I hear comments coming from across the way, they like to plant the seeds the doubt or to be critical. Let us think in terms of the volume of dollars that are being contributed to this program. It is $30 billion over five years. That is a serious commitment to ensure that not only are we bringing in legislation, but we are also supporting that legislation with tangible dollars.
The legislation we have before us today is not the starting point. Ministers and civil servants have had what I suspect are hundreds of collective meetings in every region of our country, and working with indigenous leaders, to ensure that we are able to accomplish something that has never been done before, and that is an agreement on the principles we are talking about.
It does not matter what province or territory or community Canadians live in, those principles of child care and early learning are going to be there. That is something I know and am absolutely confident of, because I have had discussions with colleagues in our Liberal caucus who are very passionate about this, and for good reason. We understand and appreciate the true value of the legislation.
There is a place we could go to see the degree to which it has been successful, and that is the province of Quebec. For over two decades, Quebec has been dealing with early learning and child care in a far more progressive fashion or manner than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I have even heard some members say in North America, and I suspect that could be the case.
The national Liberal Party and the government of the day has said that this is something we believe in, and it is not our first attempt. We attempted to do this prior to Stephen Harper's government. We came very close. This time we believe we can cross the finish line. Once again, we have achieved something that no other government has done. We have the agreement in writing from the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders who have signed off, saying that they support the principles I am talking about. They support what the national government is doing on the issue of early learning and child care.
Even though we have accumulated a great deal of support, there is a number of us who have some concerns, if I could put it that way, in terms of where the Conservative Party of Canada really is on the issue. They are fair concerns. Let us think about the last federal election. In the last federal election, the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, made it very clear that he would scrap the Liberal plan. That was the past leader. The current leader boasted about how his former government cancelled Liberal child care plans.
People need to realize that 338 Conservative candidates in the last election knocked on doors, handed out materials, were all over social media and had press conferences and so forth on their election platform, a platform that was not positive toward what we are doing regarding early learning and child care.
I posed a question earlier today to the critic. It would be nice to believe the Conservatives will change their opinions or flip-flop. Some of my colleagues say, no, that will not happen, but I am an optimistic person. A glass half full of water means there is water in the glass to drink. At the end of the day, I am hopeful the Conservatives will see the light on this issue and change their position.
1162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party. Here we have a very progressive policy for the children of our country and an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the position they took in the last election, when they said they would get rid of the child care program, a program that has been signed off on by provinces and territories. It is an opportunity for Canadians to have affordable child care.
The legislation we are voting on today is not meant to provide the details the member is looking for. Look at the agreements. It is in the agreements. This is the framework.
Why is the Conservative Party sticking to its election platform and throwing out a national child care program when, in fact, this is the type of program we should all be supporting? It is the only party in the chamber voting against this legislation.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I guess this is where we differ. Whether one is an 11-year-old child in Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or any other jurisdiction in Canada, we believe that having that basic dental benefit for all children is a positive thing. There will be some variances. Some provinces, such as Alberta, have another program. Quebec has a program. Some provinces have no program. From a national perspective, we are trying to ensure that every child gets access to dental care.
It is disappointing that the Bloc is being narrow-minded and is not recognizing the true value of providing children in Canada a benefit that will make a difference.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, through previous questioning it is clear that Bloc members support the principle of providing dental benefits to children under the age of 12. They are not objecting to that. It also appears to be clear that they are not against us making that a government expenditure. It seems to me that they should be voting in favour of the legislation, unless there is an alternative reason. The reason the member is putting forward is they need more time and then they will support the bill.
I wonder if the member can be clear as to why members of the Bloc do not support it. I suspect it is because they do not want Ottawa to play a role in this, which I believe would be to the detriment of kids throughout the country, as it should be available to all children.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are some people who would like to sabotage the bill. I argue that there are thousands of people who move interprovincially every year. A child in Quebec today could be a child in Manitoba tomorrow, or vice versa. I would like a program to be there for all children in Canada, no matter where they live. That is what this legislation would do.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Oct/20/22 1:23:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding children. She makes reference to our ridings, and there are so many children who need that extra attention. That is why I felt so good when we increased and changed the Canada child benefit program. It lifted literally hundreds, if not thousands, of children out of poverty. These are children who are represented by both of us. We need to continue to work hard at making sure—
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things we demonstrated, whether it is the health care accord or the first-ever child care accord with the different provinces and territories, is that at times there is an absolute need for the government to work with the provinces to implement a program. In this particular situation, it is very much a patchwork. We heard that during the debate, where some provinces are doing better than other provinces.
For the first time, for individuals who are financially challenged or at that lower income, their children who are under the age 12 are going to be receiving a benefit. That benefit is going to prevent many of those children from ever having to go into a hospital situation because they could not afford to get dental work done. It is more important to recognize that fact and implement the program, and I suspect there will be an ongoing dialogue to look at ways in which we can expand the dental care program and benefits.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and talk about a really important issue, an issue that affects children in every region of our country. It is interesting that during this debate, the Conservative Party is trying to give a false impression. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would think there is no need for the program, that in most of the provinces, there is not a problem for children under the age of 12, that we should not worry because programs are in place. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the day, there are children in every region of our country who will benefit from Bill C-31.
I understand Bloc members at times are a little confused and it seems they do not support the motion we are debating now, but I think they are going to support the legislation. The Conservatives, on the other hand, do not support the motion and do not support the legislation. There is a big difference. If we did not bring forward this motion, the bill would not pass in a timely fashion. As my colleague mentioned, if we left it up to the Conservative Party, the 11-year-olds and 12-year-olds today would have no chance to put in a claim.
The Conservative Party understands how important it is, from its perspective, to filibuster to prevent legislation from passing. What we are debating now is not Bill C-31. We are debating the process that we have to put into place to allow Bill C-31 to see the light of day, to allow it to get to committee. That is what this resolution is all about.
Earlier this morning when the House started, we saw the types of tactics the Conservative Party used. It moved concurrence in a committee report in order to kill three hours of government business time so that we would not be talking about the environment, because the Conservatives do not care about the environment. That is the reality. The Conservatives do not want to debate Bill S-5 and now they have come up with a way to prevent it from happening.
The motion we brought forward is supported by the New Democratic Party for good reason. Because of this motion, Canadians from coast to coast to coast can be assured there eventually will be a dental plan, but first the bill has to get through committee, report stage, third reading and through the Senate. However, at the very least, we are seeing some forward movement on the legislation, which I believe is a very strong, positive thing.
The member for Abbotsford talked about health outcomes. This legislation is about health outcomes. Whether people are from British Columbia, as the member for Abbotsford is, P.E.I. or Manitoba and every other jurisdiction in Canada, there are children in need of the type of dental program that this legislation would provide. By denying them the opportunity to have this kind of benefit, children will not get the dental work that is necessary and, as a direct result, will often be taking up emergency room spots in our hospital facilities.
The member for Regina—Lewvan talked about working with the provinces on health care. I would suggest that the member talk to some of the provinces and look at some of the issues facing health care today. One of those issues is backlogs for surgeries and so forth. He should check out the number of spaces in emergency rooms.
When we talk about healthy outcomes, it is more than just putting smiles on kids who are under 12 and supporting children with a dental program. It is also going to help seniors who need hip replacements and individuals who need to use emergency services, in particular our children's services, such as the children's hospital at the Health Sciences Centre. These are the types of things that, when we look at Bill C-31 and we want to talk about health outcomes, have to be factored in.
The member for Abbotsford talked about how we should put the legislation to the side for now because of the issue with inflation, or there was talk about other programs. That is what the member for Abbotsford said. We need to read what it is he said. At the end of the day, he did not believe we could bring forward this program. He wants to show that we are treating the issue of inflation in an appropriate fashion.
Need I remind the former critic for finance, the member for Abbotsford, to compare Canada's inflation rate to other countries around the world? At the end of the day, what we will find, whether it is the United States, England or most European Union countries, is that Canada's inflation rate is lower.
When the member talks about dealing with inflation, we are dealing with inflation in other legislation. On one of the pieces of legislation, Bill C-30, the member for Abbotsford actually voted in favour. That is dealing with inflation. We are saying we are going to increase the rebate for the GST. That would put cash in 11 million Canadians' pockets. That would put money in our communities, whether it is Abbotsford or Winnipeg North. That would help Canadians in a real and tangible way.
I have to be honest here. To the Conservatives' credit, they did flip-flop. Originally they opposed it, but they did come and support the bill and I am grateful to the Conservative Party for realizing that.
I say that because people could be somewhat encouraged by it. I would like to suggest to the Conservative Party that it do likewise for this bill. If I was to request hands up on the Conservative benches from those MPs who believe that not one of their constituents would benefit from the dental plan and not one of their constituents would benefit from the rent subsidy, they could show me a hand or stand up on a point of order and make that statement, but not one of them will raise a hand.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: What member is that? Does anyone know what riding she represents?
1051 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is clear, unfortunately, is that the Bloc, a separatist party that does not have any form of a national vision recognized, is working with the Conservative Party of Canada and does not support this legislation.
That is the reason the motion is necessary. If the motion were not brought in, children in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, would not get the benefits of a truly national program that would prevent, in many ways, children from having to go to hospitals. How could members of the opposition, namely the Conservative and Bloc members, disregard the needs of children under the age of 12? Shame on them.
Why does the member not recognize that if not for the NDP, we would not be able to get this legislation through the House? Maybe he is being somewhat hypocritical in his assessment.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Minister of Health for coming to Winnipeg North a few weeks back and meeting with some community members at the Fred Douglas Lodge. It was greatly appreciated. We were talking about how we help our seniors.
Today, the minister is bringing forward legislation that would help the residents of Winnipeg North, children under the age of 12 whose parents or guardians might not necessarily have the financial means to get them the dental work that is so critically important. That applies from coast to coast to coast.
Could the minister specify why this is so important? How many children fall through the cracks because they do not have dental benefits and ultimately end up going to hospital facilities?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, can the member for Sudbury speak about why the children under 12 in her constituency need this particular bill to pass?
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate many of the comments that the member has made.
One of the aspects of the legislation that is, ultimately, the most important from my perspective, which I know the member shares, is the area of dental care for children under the age of 12.
This is something that I and many believe is going to be able to assist so many families in all regions of the country, assisting, for the first time, many children who would never have received the type of dental care they require, the lack of which often leads children to be put into hospital situations.
I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to children who are not getting the dental work today and who end up in hospitals because of the affordability issue.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Conservatives and the Bloc do not recognize that this legislation is going to enable children under the age of 12 to get the dental work that is absolutely necessary. Many children are not getting dental work because of the issue of affordability. Many of those children end up going into hospitals at great cost because they did not get the dental work that is required. Now, we have a government that is recognizing the importance of getting the job done in serving our young children in Canada.
We are talking about hundreds of thousands of children who are going to be eligible, in every region of our country, yet the Conservatives feel that the federal government plays no role.
Why is the member not standing up for the children whom she represents who do not have dental insurance?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
