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 .

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speeches are always so enthusiastic, entertaining and really on point.

I have to agree with everything he said, pretty much. I agree that the $500 for rental support is basically a part-time solution, just as the dental care solution in this bill is basically a down payment on a real program that will help all Canadians.

This is more of a comment. I was going to bring up Vienna as an example and then the member mentioned it. I think we in Canada have to look beyond our borders and certainly beyond North America for the solution we need for the housing crisis. One of our problems is that we live next to the United States, which does not provide a lot of those solutions.

I want to thank the member for his speech.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood whether there was a question in my colleague's comment, but I thank him for his comment nonetheless.

I will take this opportunity to talk about homelessness, which is an important issue. Obviously, if we do not deal with housing, sooner or later there will be homeless people on the street. During the pandemic, the government launched some decent programs to fight homelessness. A very important resource was created in my riding, and we would like to see it become permanent. However, we are not sure whether the government will continue to fund these projects, and we have to be careful about that.

I would also like to say that the government has launched a program that is pretty good. It is called the rapid housing initiative, or RHI. It is a good program because 100% of the housing is paid for. The government contributes all the necessary funding, so organizations do not have to chase down three or four different grants. The government should be putting more money into this program.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will follow the NDP member and thank my Bloc colleague for a very exciting and passionate speech.

I agree on the housing issues, especially with his comment that this is just a band-aid solution that is being put forth. It does not get to the root crux of the need for more housing and for more rental units across Canada.

I have talked about these issues with my constituents when I have had housing task force meetings. What they seem to be okay with, even the developers, in order to increase more affordable units across the country and across the riding is putting in a bit of a mandate for developers so they have to hedge so many units to be affordable. The biggest concern and push-back I got was about whether it would be the same for everybody.

Has the member heard similar stories in his riding?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a worthwhile measure, but it is up to cities, municipalities and urban centres. In Quebec, some cities, such as Montreal, are trying to do that, and the mayor of Montreal is a huge proponent.

There are problems though. Some local governments impose penalties on developers that do not build a certain proportion of social housing, affordable housing or family housing. A few months ago, I read an article that said developers often try to get around that requirement. They promise that 20% of their units will be affordable, but they do not follow through because they would rather pay the penalties and build condos for the upper class.

That is why it is not a perfect solution, but it is not bad.

The House resumed from October 7 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, and of the amendment.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to be standing here to speak to this bill. Lots of people are still in the House and I know they are all excited about my speaking to this bill as well.

I want to start off with a quote. What I have been hearing for the last number of weeks is that we do not care about children. I want to read from something that I received this morning. It was sent to every member of Parliament. I really hope that government members are listening and reading their emails. This is a letter from Children First Canada which states, “Once ranked 10th amongst the OECD for the well-being of children, Canada has fallen sharply to 30th place. Children First Canada's latest raised-in-Canada research suggests Canada has reached a critical tipping point. Many children do not make it to their 18th birthday. The infant mortality rate in Canada is higher than in most wealthy countries and the leading cause of childhood deaths include preventable injuries, suicide and homicide. Those that do not survive are not thriving. One-half of kids experience poor mental health in the form of depression, one-third experience bullying, one-quarter experience sexual harassment or assault in school before reaching grade 7 and a fifth grow up in poverty.”

I wanted to read that into the record because we are talking about a program that was introduced earlier this year which I believe has not had the appropriate consultation, especially with the provinces. I would like to ask the government what consultation it did with the provinces. The consultation with the Canadian Dental Association makes it very clear that it is not pleased with this decision.

When I read something like this from the OECD stating that there is an astounding negative impact on our children under the government with its leadership, yet the government is telling us that we do not care about our children, perhaps it should look in the mirror and tell us how we went from 10th to 30th place. That is something really important that we should be looking at. I hope that members are reflecting on that as we have this discussion.

I am coming to this discussion on Bill C-31, the dental and rental bill as it has been called, by looking specifically at the dental aspect. I have applied my education in dental health from 1993 when I graduated and then worked in the field for a number of years, and then once I had children, my understanding of the field as well. I come to this with an understanding of how these programs work, what it looks like as a dental assistant, or a dental hygienist, or working and teaching people how to brush their teeth. I have had the opportunity to work very closely with many dentists, specifically Dr. Charlin Lin in the city of London, where I have seen the importance of dental health.

When we talk about dental health, I would have to say it is one of my top three priorities, absolutely one of the key priorities when we are looking at health care. Dental health falls there, but what we are talking about is a program that we want to have nationally. This is where I applaud the government for understanding that dental health is very important, which it is, but come on. The government is providing a program that is so not beneficial to Canadian families. That is what I want to reflect on in this speech today.

Over 70% of Canadians are already covered under some programs. We know that children, specifically here in Ontario, are covered under a program called healthy smiles. Back when I graduated, it was called children in need of treatment. If anyone wants to debate it with me, they should go for it. I dare them. The fact is that children in need of treatment was an excellent program and was a very important program for low-income people.

I listened earlier to the Prime Minister talk about targeted funding. If we want to talk about targeted funding, the government should do what the provinces have asked for. The provinces have asked the government to expand the already existing programs.

That is why I say that the government has come up with a program that fills this little minute void and looks really great on paper. Meanwhile, it is sitting on $4.5 billion that was announced in last year's budget for mental health and the OECD has said that the well-being of our children has dropped from 10 down to 30 in its rankings. The government is putting forward a program that looks great on paper, but if it were to ask anything about the administrative costs, it would find out that those administrative costs are not going down to our children.

Once again, the government is wasting taxpayers' money. That is why I challenge the government to take a step back, take a look at this program, and start talking to the Canadian Dental Association and the Ontario Dental Association. I have read their reports. I have spoken to dentists and they are not in support of this program.

I will read from the newsletter of an organization, Atlas Dental. It states:

The federal government’s plan for now is both ambitious, ambiguous, and perhaps a little misguided. There are many questions that are yet to be answered before such a universal dental care program comes into effect. Such as exactly how much dental care coverage is each Canadian eligible for? What kind of dental services are covered? Will it be available under public health unit dentists or will it be open to private practice dentists as well?

Some answers are coming out, but at the same time, it does not answer the need.

It goes on to state:

During the 2021 Canadian federal election, the CDA recommended that Parliament conduct a detailed study on improving dental coverage for Canadians, within the first 12 months following the election. In the interim, the CDA recommended an investment of $600 million over the next five years to maintain and expand existing dental care programs delivered by provincial and territorial governments, particularly those targeting vulnerable populations.

The reason it is very important for me to put on the record is I do not know where the support for this program is, with the exception of the government bench. When we talk to dentists, the dental health associations and the public health associations about their needs and what they have asked for, the government is delivering something totally different. and I ask why. Why is the government putting forward a program when people have said this is not the way to do it?

When we look at dental programs, we should look at the schedules. This is getting into the weeds. A schedule is the lab work, the five-digit code that a dentist has to put in and say what it costs. For those working in programs like children in need of treatment or the healthy smiles program, there is a special code. People can go to their dentists, have work performed and there is a smaller cost associated with that.

Many of those programs are covered by Ontario Works, ODSP and an assortment of other programs. We are now going to be putting money into Canadians' bank accounts without actually doing the follow-up investigations that will be needed. If they are following the same schedules, because the government is saying it is going to be public and universal and it is going to be legal to have different schedule fees, what we will find is that they will be paying for a pantograph that will now be two or three times what the cost would have been under the child in need of treatment program. The filling that would have cost maybe $90 is now going to cost $345. It is a program that provides the services that Canadians need and that children across this country have received. Yes, there are gaps, but it would be replaced with a very ill-thought-out program. That is why I am very concerned.

I am going to talk about the rental benefit. I am very proud of my son, who finally moved into an apartment of his own. The cost is $1,400. What a great cost, because it is one of the most affordable apartments that he could find. The average rental cost in my community is over $2,000 and $500 does not even pay for a week's rent in the city of London. This would be a band-aid approach. Meanwhile, we see the housing markets skyrocket.

If we want to look at why apartment rents are so costly, it is because of where the houses are. If we want to compare the facts from 2018 to 2022 and look at what the market range is for real estate, we are going to find in some of our communities that there are differences of $250,000 to $300,000. This is really important to know because for someone trying to rent an apartment whose base cost was originally $345,000 and that person buys a home for $650,000, we all know that rental cost is going to go up. Then we have to add the interest rates that we are going to continue to see.

As members of the Conservative Party have been bringing forward time and time again, we see inflation and more spending by the government. We ask the government to please put a cap on it and to get something done right. It should fix our health care system with good programs and stay away from dental programs until the government gets it right. This is a failure. I hope the government can do better.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House can agree that we want to see good health outcomes for our children. The member mentioned how Canada needs to do better when it comes to our children. This is one step in which Canada can provide dental benefits to children under the age of 12. I would also like to say this is the first step toward getting it right and having a more comprehensive approach in the coming years.

I would like to also inform this House and the members opposite that, on average, in Ontario alone, every nine minutes somebody walks into an ER with dental pain. In 2014, 61,000 people entered ER rooms for dental health issues. We are really going to be cleaning up our ERs by putting this program in place and we are going to help other Canadians get the services they actually need. The average cost of a Canadian going into an ER room is about $513. That does not even include complete procedures or hospitalization if that happens.

Would the member not say this is a great preventative measure and a great first step?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member and all I can say is I am really sorry that she is so off base on this one. I look at the fact that when we are talking about this program, we already have first steps in place.

If we really want to talk about prevention, put that education in the public schools; put that education into parents' homes. That is where it is missing. We do not have the educational programs across our provinces like we once did in the 1970s and 1980s. We have seen some of that being retracted. If we want to teach education, teach prevention, and dental health is part of that.

If we want to talk about first steps, work with our partners. That is our first step. When the CDA says it wants one program and when the provincial governments are saying the same thing, listen. That is where we can do well with these dental programs.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We learn something new every day and I just learned that she used to be a dental hygienist. She knows what she is talking about.

I have a more specific question for her. Since she was a practitioner and professional in the field, she knows that implementing a universal dental care program takes a lot of time, including to negotiate with the provinces. We know that reaching an agreement with the various professional associations in the provinces is complicated.

In light of this, can my colleague explain to me why the government and the opposition party supporting it are in such a rush to bring in this program when they know full well that it will likely make more people unhappy than happy?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it looks really good in the headlines and it looks really good when we get the government to tell us that we do not care about children's teeth. No, we care about a program that works. We care about the economy. We care about the next generation. When we talk about spending money right, let us talk about the $4.5 billion that has been sitting in the coffers for the last year under the government when we know we are in a mental health crisis.

Earlier today, I heard that one person each week in the city of London is dying of an overdose. That is one person a week. In 2015, I was hearing that about Vancouver, but this has gone across our country. We are talking about dental care when we should really be talking about the opioid crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my hon. friend asked: Where is the support? I can say in all honesty to her that I have never had a more generous outpouring of support and total glee at the announcement of a program than I have had with this one. For the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the status quo is not working.

With respect to my Conservative colleagues, I think they are mixing up Bill C-31 with what will eventually be the program. It is important to emphasize that Bill C-31 is an interim dental benefit until the fully functioning program can come online. It is important to make that distinction and I think it is important to understand that there is room from improvement and consultations.

Right now for the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the status quo is not working for them. Their children need help and they are incredibly happy that I am delivering for them on this promise.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my husband is watching, so to my chicken farmer friend over there, I would like to say to him that we already know that during the federal election, the Canadian Dental Association asked for interim money to put money into a program through the provinces and territories that already existed. That was asked for by the provinces and territories. It was asked for by the CDA.

Yes, people are excited about the headlines, but it is the guts of this bill that is a real mess. Unfortunately, the headline is great, but the guts suck.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know you have had a busy day. It is an honour to have you with us this evening and to see you in the chair until perhaps late into the night.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C‑31. As everyone knows, this bill will make a benefit available to certain families with children, depending on their income, to pay for dental care services. It will also make a $500 lump sum housing benefit available to families who spend more than 30% of their income on rent.

I am not going to do a deep dive into this bill's strengths and weaknesses because I think the members for Mirabel and Berthier—Maskinongé have eloquently made its flaws and weaknesses clear to us all.

I want to talk about my experience as a health care professional, my knowledge of the Quebec health care system, its strengths and the improvements that could be made in the area of oral health. Beyond dental care, it is about the importance of oral health. It is about providing this care to as many people as possible who need it, especially to those who have limited resources and cannot afford the rather high costs involved in going to the dentist.

In my profession, when investments are made in a program or measure, it is important to immediately consider how the results will be evaluated. It is important to look at how continuous improvement is being measured. Is there any evidence that the money invested is achieving the desired goals?

Mr. Speaker, could those gentlemen speak more—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to remind hon. members that a speech is being given. If they want to talk to each other, maybe they can get a little closer and not talk as loud.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît may continue her speech.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because I am speaking in French that those who speak only in English are less interested. I wonder.

The idea is that we have to wonder about the money that will be spent when we propose a measure that is fundamentally good. Will the money meet our public health objectives?

In Quebec, we already have a body with the expertise to measure outcomes, and that is Quebec public health. There are researchers and scientists whose jobs it is to do this. I agree that there are dental care needs, but I am not sure that Bill C‑31 will achieve the hoped-for objectives. This came about quickly without any real exploration of the idea and without any way to measure the outcomes.

From what I understand, people will have to file an application, register with the Canada Revenue Agency and submit a receipt that could potentially get lost. Some people will not have access to the Internet. As a member of Parliament, I expect to receive phone calls in my riding. I expect to be told that a claim was filed but the cheque never came, that the receipt was lost, or that an overpayment was made and now needs to be paid back.

If the Minister of Health's objective truly is for children to have access to dental care, why did he not hand over the money set aside for Quebec so that Quebec could improve its own program? In Quebec, children under 10 years of age who are having problems with their teeth can simply use their health insurance card. They go to the dentist, show their card, and the costs are automatically covered. With this measure, we are introducing a more complex administrative process to allow parents to claim the costs for their children. It is not clear how many services will be covered and how this will be measured.

I have many questions, which is why I am not so thrilled about this gag order. We all have a lot of questions, and normally these things are debated in committee and we can look into each aspect of a bill more thoroughly.

When I was young, dental hygienists would come to my elementary school and show us how to brush our teeth. We know that oral hygiene is also a lifelong habit. The idea is to also invest in prevention. Our Quebec system is stretched to the limit. Since arriving here, the Bloc Québécois has kept repeating in the House that Quebec needs health transfers to improve all its health and social services programs as well as the safety net for its entire population.

On another note, now that we have raised the issue of dental care, I am wondering about how quickly this is happening. Usually, consultations are held. When a measure is proposed, criteria are identified to assess whether the objectives are being met. Experts are consulted. At this point, I have the feeling that this step was skipped, and that the government only wanted to quickly seal the deal with the NDP so it could say that it fulfilled its commitment. We have until 2025, here is the cheque and that is done. I feel that this is a botched bill and that we did not have the time required to consult with civil society, scientists and experts.

Regarding part 2 of the bill, which deals with housing, we cannot object to the most disadvantaged people receiving a $500 cheque. I would like to point out that in Quebec, we have had a great program since the 1990s called Allocation-Logement that provides a monthly benefit. For example, a single low-income person over the age of 50 who earns less than $20,800 can receive up to $170 per month to help with their housing costs. This is a significant program that enables low-income, disadvantaged or vulnerable people to make a budget. They know they will not receive a one-time single cheque, but they will get a certain amount each month to help them cover their rent.

I am a health care professional, even though I am on unpaid leave while I do my job here in Parliament. I think it really would have been better for the government to transfer the money to Quebec's Allocation-logement program to enhance and improve it, rather than writing cheques to people who apply for this benefit. It would have been easier for those this measure is intended to help.

In order to get the $500 provided for in Bill C-31, people need to apply for it. They also need to prove that they are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. That is a lot of work for the person applying and for those who have to review their application. We know that the federal government's services to the public are a real mess right now. I am not criticizing public servants; they are overworked. There is a labour shortage and the system is not working right now. The government wants to add to that, and I am worried that the people who need this $500 will not get it.

I think that, if we really want to change things and make people's lives better in terms of things like dental care or housing, we need ongoing core measures, measures that will be around for a long time. People need to be able to understand that there is a beginning and that they can count on government help every month. In essence, the government's job is to create wealth and better redistribute it to the people who need it most.

I feel that we could have used more time to debate this bill. Its substance is good, but the execution is flawed. Unfortunately, I am afraid it was not created for the right reasons. I believe this bill has a partisan, ideological purpose, one that is not necessarily intended to serve the community.