Bill C-31

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2 (Targeted Support for Households)

An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing

Part 1 enacts the Dental Benefit Act , which provides for the establishment of an application-based interim dental benefit. The benefit provides interim direct financial support for parents for dental care services received by their children under 12 years of age in the period starting in October 2022 and ending in June 2024.
Part 2 enacts the Rental Housing Benefit Act , which provides for the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit.
Finally, Part 3 makes related amendments to the Income Tax Act , the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .

The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always a little bit amazed that when the Conservatives are talking about inflationary pressures they neglect to talk about the profiteering that is going on with wealthy corporations, the war that is happening in Ukraine and the supply chain issues that have happened over the last two years. I suppose that if we use that same logic of making it attributable to one political party, in the U.K. we could call it Conservative inflation.

I am glad to hear that the member is supporting Bill C-30. As to Bill C-31, however, he talked about Liberal benefits. Why does he feel that Conservative MPs should have dental benefits but their constituents should not?

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics a long time. It may not look like it, because I try to look younger than I am, but I have been in it a long time. My mother is entirely to blame for this. She started to be involved when I was around 10 or 11, and she was fighting for the people in my community. She was working with other New Democrats to create programs and infrastructure that people could rely on.

I have talked about my mother quite a bit this week in the House. She had such an incredible impact on me. She allowed me to grow up with incredible people from the CCF and the New Democratic Party, who truly believed in the institutions that a government can create. Often times, certainly now, we get away from that ability of a government to create something much bigger than a simple tax break or something short term. These are the easy solutions that people think will help them.

Ultimately, it is those long-term investments, the long-term solutions and social programs, that help people. I believe that is what we are talking about today. It is fighting for social justice and pushing for the federal government to ensure that people are treated fairly, treated well, treated with respect and treated equitably.

When my mom was about to retire, she talked to me about running in London—Fanshawe. We spoke about the need for leaders to fight every day for the social programs that lift people up equitably. I know Canadians are hurting. We all know this. Inflation is taking a huge hit on people's pocket books.

One in five Canadians are forced to skip dental visits because they simply cannot afford them. One in three Canadians have zero dental insurance at all. Many Canadians have inadequate coverage, but knowing how many Canadians are hurting is simply not enough. We cannot just talk about it. We have to do something about it.

We have known that dental care belongs in our public health care system for decades. It has been 58 years since the Royal Commission on Health Services called for dental care to be included in our public system. In fact, New Democrats have been fighting for that ever since Tommy Douglas brought forward our universal health care system. We have been talking about pharmacare as well, which is something New Democrats are also pushing for.

I know the huge responsibility it is to fight for the people in London—Fanshawe. That is why I chose to run. My mother made me promise that I would do everything possible to make life better, and I truly believe that we are all here in this place because we want to make that positive difference in our communities and for our constituents.

We certainly do not necessarily agree on what the best path is, but I believe in the power and equity of social programs delivered by government and the power of people who work together to lift each other up. That is why I was so proud to jointly second my former colleague's motion, M-62, which was Jack Harris' private member's motion in the last Parliament. It called for a federal dental care plan.

That is why I am proud to also stand up for housing in the House today through supporting Bill C-31. Is this bill going to fix everything? No. I wish that one bill could. I wish that we would come together as a House and as members of Parliament to truly provide people what they need with those longer-term solutions.

New Democrats are doing that, and we are using every ounce of influence we have in this minority government to actually deliver on the promises that we campaigned on, that I spoke about when I went door to door in London—Fanshawe. We are working on the solutions that we truly believe will help people.

Bill C-31 is a part of that promise. It has dental care, housing supports and more money in people's pockets to deal with the increased cost of living. The dental care benefit for children without insurance under the age of 12 would help parents with an income of less than $90,000 purchase much-needed dental care for their kids.

The dental care benefit would provide direct payments to eligible applicants, totalling up to $650 per child per year for dental services. It would also provide $390 for those with a family income of $70,000 to $79,999. Canadians will be able to apply for and receive the benefit up front, before accessing dental care. They will not have to receive it afterwards, which is incredible.

The benefit would also be flexible, as it can be used for any dental care provided by a regulated oral health professional licensed to practise in the applicant's province or territory. This is a key point. This flexibility will position parents to have discussions with their oral care providers to determine the most appropriate dental care treatment for their kids.

To have children start early on the right health path will not only help them now, it will also help the entire health system overall well into the future. We all know how good oral health is also linked to whole body health. For example, if an infection is present in one's mouth, one's bloodstream can carry the bacteria to other areas of the body, leading to other health concerns such as heart disease and stroke.

Keeping our teeth and gums healthy is an important part of our long-lasting overall health. Lack of access to dental health is precisely why our health care system spends $155 million a year for emergency dental visits in Canadian hospitals.

Bill C-31 also works to put money in people's pockets with its $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit to help pay their rents and a $467 top-up to the GST rebate to help pay their bills.

On Wednesday, Statistics Canada revealed that the number of households that rent has grown twice as fast as the number of those that own. The number of Canadians who rent their homes has grown by 21% in the last decade. Meanwhile, the average cost of rent has grown by 17.6% in the last five years, and we know it has grown even faster in so many other parts of Canada. My constituents of London—Fanshawe have seen some of the highest increases in rent, with increases of up to 26.5%.

With rising inflation, Canadian renters are struggling to make ends meet. The Canadian housing benefit top-up and the GST rebate top-up are first steps in providing real supports for Canadians.

It is clear that, left to its own devices, the Liberal government was not going to act, and the Conservatives think people should fend for themselves. These three life-changing measures for families are here only because of the efforts of the NDP.

We are not going to stop there. We are going to keep fighting to make sure all Canadians have access to comprehensive dental care as part of our health care system and have better access to truly affordable housing.

As inflation hits an almost 40-year high, workers and their families are struggling to keep up. Hard-working people are playing by the rules and doing everything right, but they are falling further behind. Let us be clear, workers did not cause inflation. They should not be the ones paying for it.

Excessive corporate profits and greed are jacking up costs, and wages are not keeping up. Big grocery chains, big oil companies and big box stores are making a fortune off hard-working families. When times are tough, it should not be hard-working people who pay the price. The top 1% have rigged the system to take wealth from working people. While Liberals and Conservatives like to say they support workers, when push comes to shove, they always take the side of CEOs.

This extreme divide between the ultrarich and the rest of us is out of control. One only needs to look at the ultrawealthy who go on joy rides to space because they feel like it. Jeff Bezos spent $5.5 billion to spend 11 minutes as far above the rest of us as he possibly could. Meanwhile, his workers, who do the actual labour that produces that enormous profit, face some of the harshest and inhumane working conditions.

Of course we know the story of Galen Weston, the owner of Loblaws, who was at the centre of the bread price-fixing scandal. He is using the time of inflation to further increase his profits. He raked in the largest amount of excess profits during the pandemic and then argued to cut off workers in his grocery stores from their additional pandemic pay. A man who is worth almost $10 billion U.S. argued that he could not pay more than minimum wage and workers should not get an extra $2 an hour, even though they were on the front lines.

While it is easy to blame and point at the richest people on earth and say they are bad, it is governments that allow them to get away with it, and we need to look at ourselves in this chamber to take responsibility for that.

There are more stories about this wealth inequality. It is something I see in my hometown. The food bank in London has record numbers of people coming in. There are over 20,000 per month. People are going through hard times.

This is a bill that could help them. It is just a start. We need to continue to put more into those major social programs, those long-term solutions, and I am proud the New Democrats are doing that today with Bill C-31.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if he agrees that the government took a really boneheaded approach to writing Bill C‑31. We agree with the principles, but it is written all wrong.

Allow me to provide some examples. Rent relief will be provided via the Canada housing benefit, but no one in Quebec receives that. Quebec has its own program with the right to opt out with compensation. There is not a single line about that in Bill C‑31, and there is no plan for harmonization.

It is the same with dental care. It is for children under the age of 11. Quebec has a program for children under the age of nine. There is no mention of that and no plan for harmonization.

Does my colleague think that the government realizes that Quebec exists, or should this bill actually be called “how to turn good principles into bad law”?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-31. Before I begin, I want to let members know I will be sharing my time with the member for London—Fanshawe.

I must say that I was entertained by the previous speaker, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. I think he brought some great rhetoric to the House that was quite entertaining, although there was not much substance. If we search for a grain of truth in what he was saying, I think we would be hard pressed to find much.

I talk to my constituents every week and really try to connect with them and listen to what their concerns are. Certainly, there is a segment of our population, a growing segment, that I think is struggling with the cost of housing, specifically renters. Our government—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

This summer, I spoke with thousands of constituents from Kelowna—Lake Country in person, over the phone, on their doorsteps and at community events. I met with small businesses, farmers and not-for-profits. The struggles I heard from people and small businesses are real and extensive.

I heard about the unmanageable cost of living, which includes costs on housing, fuel and food, overall inflation, labour shortages, travel restrictions such as the ArriveCAN app, ongoing federal mandates, crushing debt for small business, supply chain issues, and delays in every federal government department, whether it be immigration and citizenship, CRA, benefits or passports.

It is evident that the legislation before us, Bill C-31, does nothing to address any of those issues and nothing to address the cost of 40-year-high inflation. For the Liberals to introduce this thrown-together legislation that will only boost inflation, and which will see its benefits evaporate with the ever-rising cost of food and gas, demonstrates the government's detachment from working families, small businesses and seniors.

I remember as a kid those tough times 40 years ago at the end of the last Trudeau government. History is repeating itself. I remember eating lots of wieners, white bread and Spam. What got us through were two sets of grandparents who had big gardens. Families are suffering today.

I mailed out a survey to residents of Kelowna—Lake Country to get their feedback about the cost of groceries and gas prices. I received thousands of responses. Food costs can vary regionally, and most people said their food bills had actually gone up more than 20%. To fill their vehicles was over $50 more per fill than last year.

Many people gave specific examples of their personal situations. I will give just a small sampling. John, who needs his pickup truck for work and who says he has good mileage on his truck, will be paying $513 a month more for gas than last year. Jeff in Lake Country wrote to me that he is getting close to having to choose between gas or food, saying that is “not a good spot to be in.”

Lea in Kelowna says she is forced to go to food banks for the first time in her life. Ken wrote that his family is presently helping a person who is living in his car because he cannot afford rent. This person works as a delivery driver, but gas prices may now prevent him from working entirely.

Paulette wrote to me and said, “I am a recently retired as a nurse. I am pretty tight with my budget. I have been able to keep my bank account at the same float number. Since March of this year, I have noticed incremental decline in my bank balance to the tune of $400 a month. It doesn't take long on a fixed income to be alarmed in seeing consistent decline.”

How is a retiree like Paulette supposed to deal with a $400 loss each month? How is a new family or a young worker supposed to deal with it? They will not if we maintain the government's high-spend, high-cost NDP-Liberal approach. We need to stop the money printing, stop the spending and stop increasing taxes, all of which are creating inflation.

Legislation like Bill C-31 will not reverse the ever-increasing costs of our basic necessities. While the government says this legislation will tackle the real issues of Canadians in need of relief, the value of these supports on people's budgets will rapidly proceed to nothing. They will evaporate quickly if the government does nothing to rein in its own costs.

Conservatives have been talking about precisely where the government could reduce costs, which would directly help to reduce the inflation that is shredding the value of people's paycheques and household budgets. It could cancel its $35-billion Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has yet to build a single road, bridge or rail line. It could drop the ArriveCAN app entirely today. It could save $25 million right now and scrap what I call the “ArriveCAN'T” app.

The government could use a one-for-one rule: For every dollar spent, find a dollar in savings. It could cancel all planned tax increases, including payroll tax hikes scheduled for January 1 and tax hikes on groceries, gas and home heating scheduled for April 1. It could cancel the escalator excise tax, which is also scheduled for April 1.

Leaving those scheduled increases on the books will be catastrophic to Canadian and small business bank accounts. Let us change course today. The NDP-Liberal bill would only raise Canadian costs, and this is obvious.

Economists are in agreement on this as well. Robert Kavcic, senior economist at the Bank of Montreal, was quoted recently on the government's proposal as saying, “We all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently…inflationary.”

Andrey Pavlov at Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business said, “If we have high inflation and that inflation continues, that assistance isn’t going to do very much to help anyone, including the recipients of that assistance. It’s just not going to be enough.”

Derek Holt, vice president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank, could not have been clearer: “Any belief that the government's proposals will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”

Let us not forget that this legislation is before us only because of the summer rush that the members of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition put on themselves, once again trying to make a parliamentary body of law-making into a short-order kitchen of quick fixes.

The legislation bears all the hallmarks of a bill not thoroughly thought through. If the government members even took the time to glance at most rental listings in British Columbia, they would know that a $500 cheque would represent not much more than a single week's worth of rent.

According to rentals.ca, British Columbia had the highest average rental rate, at $2,578 per month in August 2022. Even if the bill passes, six out of every 10 renters will not qualify for it. In Kelowna—Lake Country, the government's record on rent is clear. According to the CMHC, the average one-bedroom apartment was roughly $900 a month in 2015, when this government was elected. Fast-forward to 2022 and the rental prices have increased 61%, to $1,475.

Instead of a bill that would expand the rental market or offer my constituents an affordable path to home ownership, the government chooses to raise costs even further.

For the government to call the other half of this legislation a dental program is not quite accurate. A program would typically feature an application process. It might coordinate with many provincial, low-income dental care programs. It would actually be a program. Instead, what the government offers is an attestation.

We have seen this attestation process with no verification or cross-referencing before. We have not been told how the CRA will administer this program or what extra staff they will need to administer it. All the government has said is to remember to keep one's dental receipts.

Will people be subject to having the value of this benefit clawed back if the government or the CRA deems them not applicable? My constituency office was inundated with people being told they had to pay back CERB. The government just has not learned.

Once again, the Liberal-NDP coalition is clear on how it wants the government to run: Allow inflation to rise unchecked, take more from Canadians' pockets, circulate it through the government's bureaucracy, and then write cheques that will give only a fraction of it back. It is like a family's financial situation is a sinking boat, and the Liberals throw them a teacup to bail out the boat instead of patching the holes.

We need to put people first.

The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

The government has introduced three measures to combat inflation. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the GST/HST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. Bill C‑31 contains two more measures: dental insurance for children 11 and under and housing assistance.

With respect to housing, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the people of Quebec will not get their fair share, because this is a Canada housing benefit top-up. Quebec has had its own program for the past 25 years, and it has the right to opt out with compensation, but Bill C‑31 is silent on coordinating benefits. The same goes for dental insurance, which covers children 11 and under. Quebec's dental insurance covers children nine and under. The bill is silent on coordinating benefits.

On behalf of the government, will the parliamentary secretary promise to amend the bill to make sure it harmonizes with Quebec's programs so that my constituents will not be adversely affected?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that bills are introduced by the government. That is why I chided the government and not the NDP. Bill C-30 is well written. It is a few pages long and everything is clear. We support that bill. The Bloc Québécois was already asking the government last fall to increase the GST/HST credit to fight inflation, so we are very happy to see that.

Bill C-31 provides for rental assistance. As it now stands, people in Quebec will not be entitled to that assistance because Quebec has its own program, and the government did not think to harmonize the two. The bill is therefore poorly drafted when it comes to rental assistance.

The same is true for dental care because Quebec has insurance for children aged nine and under. Bill C-31 proposes measures for children aged 11 and under, and again there was no harmonization with the Quebec program. The government cut corners and that is what we are criticizing—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, whom I greatly respect, spoke at length about Bill C‑31. However, we are supposed to be debating Bill C‑30, which was introduced thanks to the hard work of the NDP. This bill will put an average of $500 into the pockets of Canadians who are struggling to cope with inflation. This measure will help around 12 million Canadians.

Bill C‑31 will provide dental care for all families with children under 12 and will help people who are renters. We are talking about nearly two million Canadians. The NDP had a hand in getting both of these bills introduced.

My colleague spoke about Bill C‑31 and we are currently debating Bill C‑30. I have a simple question: Which of the two NDP bills does he like best?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, to address inflation, Bill C-30 proposes an additional GST rebate for the less fortunate. It is a good measure. We have been asking for this for quite some time, and we will be voting for it. It is good, but it is long overdue.

This measure was announced at the same time as the measures introduced in Bill C-31, namely rent relief and dental insurance. We support those measures in principle as well, but I feel the need to scold the government here. Bill C‑31 is really poorly constructed. It is sloppy. It is embarrassing that Parliament is considering something so poorly drafted, and I am choosing my words carefully.

With respect to rent relief, we are concerned that Quebeckers will not get their fair share because it is a supplement to the Canada housing benefit, which no one in Quebec receives. Quebec has had its own program since 1997, so we have the right to opt out with compensation. Our program is more generous, but the eligibility requirements are completely different. However, Bill C‑31 makes no mention of it. Once again, the government has forgotten that Quebec exists. There is no talk of aligning the two. It is embarrassing. It is as though the bill was written on the back of a napkin.

The same is true of the so-called dental insurance. If the parents pay any fees for a child who is 11 or under, then Ottawa will send them a big cheque. The programs are not properly aligned. What is worse, in Quebec, dental care is covered for children under the age of 10. People in Quebec are already paying for insurance. Once again, the government did not harmonize the programs, except to say that, if the services are covered by Quebec, then Ottawa will not pay and will not compensate Quebec for the cost of its insurance. However, if the parents pay for a service that is not covered, then they are entitled to a big cheque, even if Quebec is already covering most of the costs.

How much is Quebec being penalized? The government is not saying. This is sloppy work. The bill is badly written. It seems as though the department did not even calculate the cost of all this. All it did was reuse, dollar for dollar, the numbers that the Parliamentary Budget Officer came up with and the work that he did when he costed the NDP's proposal.

Once again, this shameful government forgot that Quebec exists. Once again, there is no alignment. This bill could be called “how to turn good principles into bad legislation” or “Quebec does not exist”. I say to the government, way to go. To add insult to injury, this government chose to brief journalists on this bill long before it briefed parliamentarians. This government is showing a serious lack of respect for the House.

I now want to talk a little about inflation. There are some well-known factors driving the surge in prices, such as changes in demand during and after the pandemic; supply chain problems and bottlenecks in response to fluctuating demand and health measures; China's COVID-zero policy, which is drastically disrupting supply lines and is a good example of the health measures I mentioned; the terrible war in Ukraine, which we all hope will come to an end soon; the radical transformation of the labour market and what is being referred to in the U.S. as the great resignation; the ongoing housing shortage; and natural disasters associated with climate change that are also having an impact on the global economy.

All of these factors have significantly affected the economy both here and abroad, and prices have skyrocketed. In a number of sectors, economic abundance has given way to Soviet-style scarcity.

We hope to be able to return to some semblance of normalcy, especially if we get serious about tackling climate change. In the meantime, however, families, people, businesses and farmers are bearing the brunt of this overall imbalance. The world is struggling, and there is no easy solution.

What can be done?

In the short term, we must support the most vulnerable with measures such as those set out in Bill C‑30. We should also support the hardest-hit sectors to ensure that they get through this imbalance. I am thinking of our farmers, for example. In the longer term, we must help make our economies more resilient. With oil and gas prices rising, we must support the development of the green economy.

Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the type of imbalance we are currently experiencing. Keynes proposed effective tools to deal with crises in demand, but not crises in supply.

In light of this imbalance caused by multiple factors, how long will inflation last? It is difficult to say. The central bank has chosen to get out the heavy artillery to fight inflation. It wants to clamp down on inflation expectations. Here is its reasoning. Once expectations of higher inflation become entrenched in the economy, everyone tries to raise their prices to compensate. That creates a snowball effect. In other words, inflation expectations cause inflation.

It is easy to fall into this vicious cycle. The Bank of Canada, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Fed, wants to minimize that risk, even if it means seriously slowing the economy or even helping trigger a recession. Central banks believe that it will then be easier to stimulate the economy to support growth as needed. They are still traumatized by the inflationary episodes of the 1970s and 1980s.

Inflation is still high, but there are signs it is stabilizing. We appear to be emerging from this period of overall imbalance, at least in some sectors, but not because of monetary policy, which is slow to bring about change.

Is the central bank's policy too aggressive? Possibly.

Some economists suggest waiting a little longer to see how the economy will respond to this interest rate hike. Nobody can say for sure where lies the sweet spot between fighting inflation and avoiding recession. The Bank of Canada, again inspired by the Fed, apparently prefers to fight inflation. Over the next few months, we will see if it made the right choice. Meanwhile, economic conditions remain uncertain.

This is a difficult situation for many people, as I said. It is important to adopt policies aimed at those who are struggling the most and to implement them in the context of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. We also need to promote structural measures, including supports for social housing and measures to address the labour shortage. On that point, I do not understand why the government still has not introduced any tax breaks to lure retirees back to work.

I want to talk briefly about the situation in developing countries. It is downright catastrophic, and Canada and other rich countries must do a better job of supporting them. On top of food shortages, developing countries face high levels of public debt, as international institutions encouraged them to take on debt during the pandemic. Most of their imports and loans are in U.S. dollars. However, in the context of global uncertainty, the value of the greenback has soared, serving as a hedge and reducing the purchasing power of these countries. The energy crisis is also taking a toll. Lastly, China is drawing back from doing business with developing countries due to its own economic difficulties.

That is why wealthy countries need to come together quickly to support these countries in order to avoid a cascading series of crises in these emerging economies. Everyone will be affected. We have to prevent that from happening.

Let us also invest in the green transition. We are facing a serious crisis, and we need to act urgently.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his speech. I am fortunate to serve with him on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The government has announced three measures to fight inflation: the payment of GST refunds under Bill C-30, and dental benefits and rental assistance under Bill C-31.

My colleague was with me for the briefing on Bill C-30, and it went well. However, members of the House were not briefed on Bill C-31 until well after journalists were.

I would like to my colleague to share his thoughts on that. Does he think that the government lacks respect for the members of the House?

Again with regard to Bill C-31, does my colleague agree that we should ask the government to split the bill into two separate ones, since dental benefits and rental assistance are two very different types of measures?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, If we take a look at Bill C-31, we see the benefits that the member highlights for people who are renting, but the real nugget in that bill, from my perspective, is the dental program, which is going to assist children in being able to get dental work that might not take place otherwise. At the same time, we can ensure that people who need that dental work are being subsidized as much as possible, although it may not be 100%, as there are some limits to it.

That was just this morning. This afternoon we are bring forward another bill, which looks at doubling the tax credit, and that is going to be helping Canadians. I think what we are seeing as we come back into this session is a government agenda that is dealing with a very serious—

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

As I said to his colleague, the minister, we are in favour of increasing the GST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. That is actually something we have been calling for, and we think it should have been done long ago to help the less fortunate fight inflation.

The measures in Bill C‑30 were proposed at the same time as those in Bill C‑31. I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

Members of Parliament were invited to a technical briefing on Bill C‑31, but it happened long after the one for journalists. Does he think it is right to put the media ahead of parliamentarians, the people who pass bills?

Bill C‑31 includes a $500 rental subsidy for 1.8 million people. That adds up to $900 million, yet they are calling it $1.2 billion. What is up with the extra $300 million? Is it for management fees? Is it for WE Charity? Can he explain that disconnect?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. Bill C‑30 talks about increasing the GST rebate. That is a good measure that could have been brought in sooner.

This measure was announced at the same time as the measures in Bill C‑31 concerning a dental plan and rent assistance. However, if we look closely at the bill, the rent assistance is provided through the Canada housing benefit. This benefit does not exist in Quebec because it already had a program in place, and so the right to opt out with full compensation. The bill does not mention that right, however. There is no mention of harmonization. The same goes for the dental plan. The plan proposed in the bill would apply to children 11 and under. Quebec's program applies to children 10 and under. Again, there is no plan for harmonization.

Will the government commit to revising Bill C‑31 to account for the programs that already exist in Quebec? Is the government simply ignoring Quebec yet again?