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 .

Amendments at Committee Stage to Bill C-31

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Following the presentation earlier today of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown...no matter how tempting this may be.

The two amendments in question relate to part 2 of Bill C-31, which would enact the rental housing benefit act and provide 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.

The first amendment would modify clause 3 of the bill, which proposes to modify, in subsection 4(2) of the rental housing benefit act, the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%.

The second amendment seeks to amend the same clause and proposes to eliminate, in subsection 4(3) of the rental housing benefit act, the rule that would reduce the amount of rent taken into account in the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold. This is set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), paid in 2022 by cohabiting spouses or common-law partners living separately on the reference day.

The chair of the committee ruled each amendment inadmissible because they lacked the required royal recommendation. Both decisions were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated each amendment and adopted them.

The committee chair was correct in the assessment of both amendments relaxing the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit. This would result in a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill since more people could have access to the benefit.

Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:

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.

Consequently, these amendments need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. By adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiatives of the Crown, a committee exceeds its powers.

Consequently, the Chair must declare null and void the two aforementioned amendments to clause 3 of Bill C‑31, adopted by the Standing Committee on Health, and direct that the amendments no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-31 be published as early as possible for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

I thank members for their attention.

Opposition motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the motion tabled by our hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois to speak to an important issue. That issue is Canadian democracy and the Crown. We will be opposing this motion.

I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that representing a riding in the House of Commons is an honour and a privilege. One of the very foundations of our democracy is political representation and the fact that the people we represent elect us through transparent, fair and independently administered elections.

With democracy being challenged in so many countries around the world, it is easy to think of examples of what happens where this no longer holds. As all of us gathered here today know, the strong and resilient form of democracy we have in Canada today did not simply appear one day fully formed. It is the product of over a century of evolution. It has been fought for, and it has been gained at the cost of many men and women's blood. Today, we will continue to defend that democracy.

While Canada continues to do well on most international measures of democracy, there is, of course, always room for improvement and change. Democracy is a work in progress. It requires our constant attention. We must continue to work to ensure that Canadians in all their diversity, including marginalized people, can make their voices heard. This includes our important ongoing journey toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

In July 2022, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, published its report on trust. The report reveals that OECD countries, including Canada, have a strong democratic system. OECD countries are constantly looking for ways to improve the delivery of services to the public and the transparency of their public administrations. However, we also know that there is still work to be done. OECD countries must listen to their citizens and ensure that public policies meet their expectations. That is especially true in the context of the pandemic and global inflation. One of the main lessons learned from these challenges is that to obtain the trust of citizens, government must be aware of citizens' realities.

We know that trust is earned through performance, but to be able to get to that, we need to understand citizens' needs and their expectations, and this is something governments must continue to dedicate themselves to. Public engagement, conversation and dialogue are critical to understanding what is important to our citizens and important parts of an effective, open and transparent government. They are critical to our efforts to build and renew public trust.

Hearing from our citizens helps us better understand the diversity of opinions to ensure we focus on what is most important to them. There are many things that are on the minds of Canadians, and I would say the Bloc Québécois motion today is not the foremost one. The recent OECD open government scan of Canada notes that Canada has a strong public consultation culture and that Canada scores comparatively well when it comes to stakeholder engagement. This is both an affirmation of what we have done so far and a reminder that we can always do better. We can do more to earn and maintain citizens' trust.

Our institutions and practices reflect our societal values. We need to protect them. While the founders of our Parliament took inspiration from the halls of Westminster for sure, in our geography, our design and in our buildings, we have always adapted our own institutions and our own practices. They are made-in-Canada solutions to fit our own realities and our needs.

No one doubts the fact that decisions affecting Canada today are made here, in this place, and in the legislative assemblies of the provinces and territories of our country. Of course, the House is just one part of Parliament and Parliament itself is just one part of Canada's governing system.

As we all know, Canada is a constitutional monarchy. I imagine that it will be in place for quite some time. Historically, the Crown has played an important role in the evolution of our country. In 1982, the Queen of Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, signed our Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These two pillars of democracy help ensure the stability of our country and guarantee the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Although our attachment to the Crown has historical and cultural significance, its role is for the most part based on formalities. These are the principles that underpin our democracy.

The role of the sovereign in our constitutional monarchy is tightly prescribed. Although the last stage in the passage of our laws remains royal assent, most of the work of representing and defending citizens' interests is done in this place by its members.

Parliament is where the issues of the day should be debated and decided. The sovereign, the Governor General do not interfere in politics or these decisions. Yes, they can advise a prime minister, but they cannot reject the government's requests or undermine its position. This is the government, we are the Parliament, and they are separate. In our constitutional monarchy, the Crown's function in our government is to be a bedrock for our Constitution. It is more than a symbol, a sign; it is something we can put our hats on and our hands around to ensure that our Constitution is guaranteed, and it should transcend the political debates of the day.

The stability of our democratic institutions gives Canadians assurance and peace of mind from coast to coast to coast, so that we, as elected representatives, can focus on the issues that matter the most to Canadians. Those issues are clear, issues like the cost of living, dental care, housing affordability, the health of our economy, the health of our seniors and that of our planet.

Canada is free now and with all of our efforts will remain so. Wherever we sit in the House, I am confident that we all share that goal for a free and vibrant democracy. Let the sovereign, His Majesty King Charles III, King of Canada, be a symbol of that freedom and of our shared purpose as a country to remain free, to remain with dignity and liberty whatever the issues of the day upon which we have, and will continue to have, differences of opinion. Differences will exist in the House, they exist in Canada, but we share in common our goal of a united, passionate, just and free country.

The sovereign also acts as a symbol of what does unite our country. As you know, Madam Speaker, the actual presence of the Crown is often felt more immediately for Canadians through the sovereign's representatives in Canada, which are the Governor General and the lieutenant governors who perform most of the constitutional functions of the sovereign in his name.

The vice-regal representatives work tirelessly, whether awarding honours to Canadians and celebrating that which is best in our communities to performing their constitutional duties. They are a remarkable group of dedicated Canadians who, in their work, highlight the many people who contribute to our country day after day. We get honours sitting in the House, but the people who do that work are sometimes honoured by the Governor General or lieutenant governors of our provinces to ensure that they are honoured for what they do to keep Canada whole. They contribute to our great country. Our vice-regals, whether through formal awards in the arts, sciences, humanities, academic achievement in our high schools and universities or by recognizing the many volunteers who give their time to their communities, are fundamental to the way we live in Canada.

Canada's democracy and how Canadians govern themselves are important topics. It is absolutely clear that we should have discussions about our constitutional democracy, which is valid. One of the ways democracy has been resilient as a form of government is that it is best placed to deliver for its citizens, and that is what democracy does best, and doing so in a way that respects and helps fulfill their rights as human beings and as citizens. That is a bedrock part of democracy. This is the work we need to do together as elected representatives in this place to deliver on the needs of Canadians in uncertain times.

While many of the financial challenges we face are indeed global in nature, we experience them locally in our homes, on our streets and in our communities. That is why the government has taken on these issues of affordability, especially housing affordability but also the cost of living, extremely seriously. Housing affordability is a real and growing concern and should be a paramount issue for everyone in the House. It is the highest issue for young Canadians and people living in my riding. They are worried that they will not have the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents to own a home, to build a future.

Over the past two years, housing prices have become unaffordable for far too many people. Many people are being forced to live further and further away from their place of work and the place they grew up, when, often, that is where they want to build their future. Housing affordability is a complex issue. There is no miracle solution. In the 2022 budget, the government presented a long-term plan to address housing affordability for Canadians. This plan has three pillars, which are to help Canadians save to buy a house, to curb speculation and to increase the supply of housing, something that we should all be working on together.

There is more to be done to address affordability in housing and the cost of living beyond home ownership. This past September, the government introduced Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

Many Canadians have no access to a dental services plan. They do not use those services because of the cost, yet we know that a lack of access to dental care services not only causes harm to children but also has an impact on the whole health care system. It has to be addressed. It is one of those urgent matters that we need to share in the House. The government recognizes the need to provide interim dental benefits for children under 12 years old, while working toward the development of a long-term national dental care program.

Bill C-31 proposes a rental housing benefit act to provide a one-time payment to help low-income renters.

Together, these targeted measures will provide real benefits to Canadians who need them the most as we face global cost of living increases. This is a crisis that we need to address. We have been doing it for the last seven years as a government with the Canada child benefit and other measures that have attempted to reduce poverty and start to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor in our country. That work needs to continue and to be done day after day.

There are other issues on our government's agenda that also take priority over the motion that has been suggested today. The government is focused on delivering the needs of Canadians by taking action on climate change. The OECD trust—

Health

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Part 2 of Bill C-31 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. The amendment proposes, in clause 3, to add a new section, section 6.1, which would allow for the new rental housing benefit to be paid out in more than one year.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The document further states on page 772:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, which only provides for a one-time payment of the rental housing benefit. In addition, by providing subsequent payment, the amendment would impose a greater charge on the treasury.

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Part 2 of Bill C-31 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.

The amendment proposes to eliminate, in subclause 4(3), the rule that would reduce the amount of rent taken into account in the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold, set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), paid in 2022 by cohabitating spouses or common-law partners living separately on the reference day.

As has now become common in today's meeting, I am going to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 772. It reads:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit in a manner that would result in a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit.

I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I can use all the help possible.

Mr. Doherty was clairvoyant.

Part 2 of Bill C‑31 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.

The amendment proposes to modify, in subsection 4(2), the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g) by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit, which would impose a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit in question. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Part 2 of Bill C-31 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. The amendment proposes to remove the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g) and referred to in subclauses 4(2) to 4(6).

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment relaxes the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit, which would impose a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill, since more people could have access to the benefit in question.

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'd like to share my opinion on your decision.

The bill's short title, Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2 (Targeted Support for Households), has little to do with dental care. In fact, it doesn't mention dental care.

Based on the debate about the preamble of the proposed legislation and the fact that the first Bloc Québécois amendment did not pass, it's safe to assume that we're talking about the provision of dental care today.

I am, of course, debating the substance of your decision, Mr. Chair. In my view, the purpose of the program was supposedly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Part 1 of Bill C‑31 enacts the dental benefit act, which provides for the establishment of an application-based interim dental benefit for eligible Canadian children under 12 years old across all provinces and territories. The amendment proposes to add a new clause, clause 2.1, which allows provinces to opt out of the dental benefit program and to receive financial compensation for opting out.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The document further states on page 772:

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.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is contrary to the bill's stated principle of creating a national dental benefit program, since there is no mechanism to allow any province or territory to opt out of the program. In addition, the amendment proposes to alter the terms and conditions for spending provided in the royal recommendation.

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

I think everyone here respects parliamentary institutions. I think that's an innate quality, so to speak. One of those parliamentary institutions is the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which serves parliamentarians. Its role is to enable us to make better decisions based on facts and calculations made by competent individuals.

As you know, we've been working in a strange context here. Today we're debating a bill, but we're not even allowed to move amendments. In addition, we're not allowed to move new amendments after hearing witnesses. The least they could have done is let us hear from witnesses. However, as you know, something magical happened between Tuesday, when we decided to set aside six hours to hear witnesses, and today. Suddenly we no longer have any witnesses. We would have really liked to call the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Bill C‑31 was put together in a hurry, on the back of a napkin, with a certain lack of consideration for the parliamentary process, which we all claim is so important to us. We received the final numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Officer last Friday, after the deadline for submitting amendments. It's really quite simple: this is completely backward. As my grandfather used to say, this process is ass backwards.

You will see how what I'm saying rings true and how it relates to the amendment we're moving.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that this bill leaves out a lot of Quebecers. I will reiterate what my honourable colleague theParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health , whom I respect, said, which was that today we had an opportunity to contribute, that we had a duty to work together. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he was working for all Canadians, not just the people of Ontario who elected him. When he says all Canadians, that includes Quebecers. They would do well to remember that. About 130,000 of those Quebecers will be left out and won't receive the dental benefit.

To be honest, Quebec is being penalized for doing things well. We Quebecers are being penalized because, when it comes to Quebecers' taxes, we've made social choices, and we stand behind them. The tax burden is high in Quebec, after all, because we decided to fund a number of programs, including one for dental care. I'll say it again, it's not perfect coverage. It's for kids under 10. At the end of the day, 130,000 people in Quebec will be denied dental care because they already have public coverage. Moreover, these individuals already pay for these services through their taxes.

So, we're in an awkward situation. Sometimes we work too quickly and take shortcuts. I want to believe that we inadvertently forgot that Quebecers were going to be paying twice.

Having no respect for this principle puts public services at risk. Quebec is ahead of the curve. Nova Scotia has a generous program that already covers young people under the age of 12. What message are we sending to the Quebec government and the provincial governments when we tell them dental care is so important that if they have a universal program, they're going to be penalized. The day Ottawa steps in to make up for the lack of programs in other provinces, we will be paying double.

I like consistency, and I find that because it excludes Quebec and it penalizes Nova Scotia as well, by its very nature, Bill C‑31 will hinder the provision of dental care services by the provinces in the future. Every detail of that has been well laid out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In Quebec's case, that's about 130,000 people who will not be entitled to a benefit of just over $500, but let's also look at Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These are two neighbouring provinces with similar population sizes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's document looks at the situation in detail. Nova Scotia, whose residents bear the tax burden of the province's choice to invest in a universal dental program, will receive $5 million under the federal program. In contrast, the neighbouring province of New Brunswick, which made a social choice not to invest in the same program, will receive $13 million. This is seen as an incentive to provide public dental care, but that's not right. If anything, the bill does the exact opposite of what it was originally intended to do.

There is a solution to this. From the federal government's perspective, how do you go about promoting public dental care while also accommodating what some provincial governments already have in place? I reiterate that some provinces already have an infrastructure and are able to provide dental care very quickly, without the hassle at the Canada Revenue Agency, without the need to be audited, without the need to submit invoices through the My Service Canada Account portal. I wouldn't wish My Service Canada Account on my worst enemy. Because you know that I like you, my colleagues opposite, I would not wish that on you. In Quebec, we already have an automated payment system.

Therefore, the solution is quite simple. If a province already has a program with similar objectives and is already providing the care, as is the case with Quebec and Nova Scotia, all you need to do is offer that province an opt-out and financial compensation equivalent to what that province would have received under the federal program. That's how you promote dental care. That's how you honour the responsibility that Quebec and Nova Scotia have taken up.

This is where my colleagues opposite will tell me that they have looked at all the programs in all the provinces and that some provinces have decided not to cover dental care. They will tell us again about the Beautiful Smiles Ontario program, which only covers urgent dental care. When you have a plethora of different programs, surely you can't introduce such a centralized law or measure without, at the very least, taking the time to sit down, properly list the provincial programs and figure out how to compensate them.

When we talk to colleagues opposite about the provincial programs, the funny thing is, they list off the worst provinces but they never sing the praises of Nova Scotia or Quebec. They talk about the Beautiful Smiles Ontario program and they talk about the provinces that have no coverage.

Strangely enough, it's almost like the administrative work to align the federal program and the provincial programs was done after the bill was drafted. It is almost like my colleagues opposite realized that this work had to be done after we read the document, completed our opposition work diligently and said that they were working against public dental care. That's no small thing: the NDP is working against public dental care. Its platform says the opposite, however. The Liberals are getting behind this to stay in power. It makes no sense.

We have a solution for this that's constructive, effective and respectful of the provinces and the principle behind the bill, which is to ensure that children receive a number of services. As you know, this kind of right to opt out with full financial compensation has to be negotiated. The federal government can call up the Quebec government— it has to find the telephone number first, of course—or the Nova Scotia government to ask them to enhance their program and provide services, if families and children are so important to them, and offer some compensation to those provinces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's all about context. It's central to the delivery of care. It's not ideological or partisan. If we'd done exactly the same thing in the 1970s, which was to send cheques to people without talking to the provinces, without talking to Quebec, and telling them to use the money to go to a private sector provider, the NDP's legacy in Saskatchewan would never have happened. If they had done that, we would have no provincial public health care systems well funded with federal support. This is a long-term trashing of the NDP's historic legacy in Western Canada. Saskatchewan inspired all the other Canadian provinces to have public services. Those public services, which we are proud of, are provided day to day by Quebec and the provinces, like Nova Scotia, and they could be improved.

I appeal to all my colleagues: if it's important to you to have a dental care benefit that's quick, timely, effective and well funded, you will vote unanimously in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendment. A province that has a dental care or public insurance program for children with similar objectives to those of the bill—which doesn't recommend a service offering, by the way—must receive compensation equivalent to what would otherwise have been spent. If it's important to my colleagues, I'm asking them to support the Bloc Québécois amendment, since it's in the interest of all children in Quebec and Canada. This will allow us to provide quality dental care for years to come.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

It's important to understand that right now we're focused on the legislative content of Bill C‑31. My colleague got that right.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said, all the parties must work together, whether it's the NDP, the Liberal Party or the others. We must be constructive and work for Quebecers and for Canadians.

There's nothing stopping parliamentarians from doing their job. There's nothing stopping other types of policies related to this from being developed later on.

What's in here is the NDP's electoral platform, not what should be in the legislation. To be thorough, I think the two lines should be removed. We're not here to include speculative statements in the proposed legislation. The preamble serves to describe the content of the legislation in the simplest of terms, and these two lines should not be part of it.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Of course, we are talking about a program that is justified in large part by the federal spending power. This again confirms to us that Ottawa has an enormous amount of revenue, while the responsibilities fall to the provinces.

This is particularly true in the case of dental care. Quebec already has a program that covers this care for children aged 10 and under. As I mentioned earlier, this program used to cover many more people, but it had to be scaled back owing to a lack of funding, especially from the federal government. The context is important: the federal government is partly responsible for the fact that this universal program is not as generous as it once was.

As far as this bill is concerned, it is within the federal spending authority. We will discuss the rest in detail. That said, the development of a national dental care program, not a program to support families for dental care, is obviously an interference with Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. It is also likely to be detrimental to the relationship between Quebec and the federal government and, therefore, to the development of programs that will, in the longer term, make dental care for children sustainable.

This first amendment by the Bloc Québécois is to the proposed preamble of the new Dental Benefit Act, and it does not change the substance of the bill in any way. In fact, the part of the sentence that the Bloc Québécois seeks to remove by its amendment should never have been there. Removing this part of the sentence from the proposed preamble, which is found in line 18 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 of the bill, better describes the nature of the bill. Let me say, these three lines are merely a political stunt for future purposes: they presuppose future government actions that are not part of the bill.

Therefore, not only would the removal of these three lines be appropriate in the context of Bill C‑31, but it would be respectful of Quebec. I say it and I repeat it to my colleagues, this will in no way prevent the federal government, starting in the next few weeks, from sitting down with the governments of Quebec and the provinces to think about dental care programs or their improvement, as well as opt-out rights with full financial compensation for children's dental care.

These three lines have no place in the bill. They are essentially political manoeuvring that has no legal or descriptive value in context. Therefore, I propose that we remove them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

I would now like to welcome the officials who are with us this evening. We are well supported with plenty of expertise around the table.

We have, from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ms. Nadine Leblanc, senior vice-president, policy; Ms. Patricia Roset-Zuppa, vice-president, policy development; and Ms. Louise Michel, director, legal services. From the assessment, benefit and service branch of the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Ms. Gillian Pranke, assistant commissioner; and Ms. Heather Daniels, director general, benefit programs directorate. From Health Canada, we have Ms. Lynne Tomson, associate assistant deputy minister, strategic policy branch.

As you just heard, we also have with us the legislative clerks, Marie-Hélène Sauvé and Philippe Méla.

The good folks at the back of the room should be able to handle any technical questions you have with respect to the substance of the bill or the amendments. The good folks at the front of the room will be able to handle your legal and technical questions on that end.

There will be no opening statements. Everyone you see here is here as a resource to help us do our work.

We're now going to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-31, but I have a bit of a script here for you.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and until midnight tonight, each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title, the title, and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We're now proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. I therefore call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

I understand there is an amendment proposed to clause 2.

Monsieur Garon, do you wish to introduce the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today we meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. I appreciate that.

If Bill C-31 is adopted, applicants have a 90-day window after the RHBA comes into force in which to apply for the rental housing benefit. The bill also provides additional details on how the rental housing benefit would be administered.

If they miss that 90-day window, what provisions are in place for Canadians who require this relief?