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

This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Sponsor

Jean-Yves Duclos  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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 .

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-31s:

C-31 (2021) Reducing Barriers to Reintegration Act
C-31 (2016) Law Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
C-31 (2014) Law Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1
C-31 (2012) Law Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

Votes

Oct. 27, 2022 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing
Oct. 27, 2022 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing
Oct. 27, 2022 Passed Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing (report stage amendment)
Oct. 27, 2022 Passed Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing (report stage amendment)
Oct. 19, 2022 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing
Oct. 19, 2022 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing (reasoned amendment)

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-31, the Cost of Living Relief Act, aims to provide financial support to Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living. It includes a one-time $500 rental housing benefit for low-income renters and a dental care benefit providing up to $650 per year for uninsured children under 12 in eligible families. The bill is intended as an interim measure while a more comprehensive national dental care program is developed.

Liberal

  • Supports C-31: The Liberal speakers all voiced their strong support for Bill C-31. They argued the bill addresses the rising cost of living by providing targeted relief for housing and dental care, especially for low-income families and children.
  • Cost of living relief: The Liberals believe the bill will provide important and timely support to Canadians struggling with the increasing cost of living. They emphasized that inflation is a global challenge and that the Canadian government is committed to helping families weather the impact.
  • Canada dental benefit: A key component of Bill C-31 is the Canada Dental Benefit, which aims to provide financial support for dental care to uninsured children under the age of 12 from low- to middle-income families. This benefit is seen as a first step towards a longer-term goal of dental care for all Canadians.
  • Rental housing support: The bill also includes a $500 top-up to the Canada Housing Benefit, which will provide additional support to renters struggling with the rising cost of housing. The Liberals highlighted the importance of this support, particularly in areas with high rental costs and low vacancy rates.

Conservative

  • No dental crisis: Several speakers stated emphatically that there is no dental crisis in Canada. Rather, the speakers suggest the real crisis is in mental health and the current healthcare system. They suggest that Canadians would prefer to see tax dollars spent on mental health and healthcare rather than dental.
  • Short-term 'band-aid': Speakers characterized the bill as a short-term solution to the affordability crisis, rather than a long-term fix. One member characterized the rental benefit as at best a week's worth of rent. Members suggested that the government should be focusing on long-term solutions such as encouraging more housing construction, reducing red tape and bureaucracy, and focusing on natural resources to build up the economy.
  • Ottawa knows best: Several members claimed the program is an example of "Ottawa knows best", with the federal government trying to impose a federal program on top of existing provincial dental programs. They suggested it would create unnecessary bureaucracy and overlap. Some members suggested a better solution would be to tweak provinces that are struggling with dental care programs and to help provinces better understand how to make a better program.
  • Buying NDP support: Some speakers accused the Liberal government of using the bill to buy support from the NDP, rather than addressing real health or economic needs. Several speakers referred to the bill as a "trinket" or "shiny object" meant to distract Canadians from the government's failures. The speakers claimed the NDP's support came cheap.

NDP

  • Support for dental care: The NDP strongly supports the bill's provision for dental care for children under 12 in low-income families, criticizing Conservative opposition and highlighting the necessity of this support for over 500,000 children who lack access.
  • Housing benefit supported: The NDP supports the $500 one-time housing benefit for low-income families, viewing it as a crucial measure to alleviate financial strain amid rising inflation and living costs, while criticizing those who say the country can't afford it.
  • Pushed for amendments: The NDP successfully introduced amendments to extend the application window to 120 days, increase the eligible rent claim for room and board situations to 90%, and ensure that cohabitating families can claim the benefit according to their actual rent contributions.

Bloc

  • Unfair to Quebec: The Bloc argues that the bill, while having a laudable intention, is poorly executed and unfair to Quebec due to a lack of consultation and failure to account for Quebec's existing social programs. They highlight that Quebec will receive a disproportionately small share of the allocated funds because of existing provincial programs and higher unionization rates.
  • Provincial jurisdiction: The Bloc emphasizes that health care, including dental care, and housing are provincial jurisdictions, and the federal government's intrusion is unconstitutional. They suggest the federal government should focus on fulfilling its own responsibilities instead of meddling in provincial affairs.
  • Fiscal imbalance: The Bloc sees the bill as an example of the fiscal imbalance in Canada, where the federal government has surplus funds while the provinces lack sufficient resources for their responsibilities. They advocate for reversing the fiscal imbalance and giving Quebec and the provinces the means to care for their own needs.
  • Political deal: The Bloc views the bill as a product of a deal between the Liberal government and the NDP, rather than a genuine effort to address the needs of Canadians. They criticize the NDP for supporting a flawed bill in exchange for the implementation of a dental care program.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:05 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, the Liberals finally saw the light about the importance of a dental care program. The truth of the matter is the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this when the NDP introduced it just last year. Here we are. I am glad 24 New Democrats were able to force the government to act.

This bill is the beginning of bringing dental services to Canadians. This year, it is for children under 12 in families with incomes of less than $90,000, then next year it will be available to seniors, people with disabilities and people under 18, and then the year after that for other adults. This is what we are talking about, and it is exactly what Tommy Douglas envisioned, which was to bring forward a national dental care program for all Canadians.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Madam Speaker, I do not think Tommy Douglas would be very happy right now if he saw the state of medicare in Canada, with a quarter of Canadians without a family doctor. That is a crisis.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's response to the following question. How many Canadians would be affected positively by fixing medicare versus the positive effects of the dental care program, especially when it comes to mental health, which is a real crisis? I congratulate her on the figures she rattled off, and I am sure she has a great researcher. I hope she is giving that researcher a raise, because her researcher is struggling with the cost of living. We have a cost of living crisis. We have a mental health crisis. We have so many things happening in this country that need to be addressed, and I do not know how Tommy Douglas would feel about the coalition. I think the hon. colleague—

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I will allow the hon. member to respond.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, first off, the great researcher is the Library of Parliament. I thank it for that excellent information. That is an aside.

Tommy Douglas would be absolutely astounded at the fact that the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, did not deliver the health care transfers they promised they would. In fact, they cut them. I think Tommy Douglas would be appalled at the idea of the Conservatives wanting to pit communities against communities and say that somehow, because there is a need for health care, for mental health, we do not need dental services. On this side, we New Democrats are saying that all those services need to be provided, and the government could afford it if we would just tax the rich.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Madam Speaker, I will ask the member a brief question.

What I am having trouble understanding is that the government is trying to pass a flawed bill that in no way takes into account what Quebec is doing with its social safety net and to help people, while the federal government neglects its social safety net, employment insurance and programs for seniors and workers.

Is that the right solution for helping people in need?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. New Democrats have called for and will continue to fight for those other programs, like for changes to EI, and not only during this period of time. We have been doing it for years now. We will never give up on those provisions. This bill is what we have been able to force the government to take action on, and we will continue to drive for more action to support Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to speak to the government's plan to make life more affordable for hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast, through Bill C-31, an act respecting direct financial support for dental care.

It is fundamental that I begin my remarks by reminding the House why this legislation is essential for Canadians as we make the cost of living more affordable. In a time of global inflation, families are having to make challenging decisions at the grocery store, when paying rent or other essential bills, and with all aspects of their daily lives.

Inflation is a global challenge that is not restricted by borders and does not discriminate based on socio-economic status. It is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by Russia's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, and the government is committed to helping families weather the impact of the higher cost of living by putting more money back into the pockets of middle-class Canadians and those who continue to work hard to join them.

When the government came into power in 2015, we understood how critical it was to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest 1%. We have continuously stood with Canadians during the most challenging times, and we will continue to provide essential support through the implementation of Bill C-31.

The current oral health care system does not provide equal access to services for Canadians. We know families have made the challenging decision to forgo essential dental treatments due to the high costs. To ensure that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our communities have access to dental care, we have proposed Bill C-31, an act that will deliver more than $900 million to support oral health through the Canada dental benefit.

Beginning in 2022-23, children under the age of 12 without insurance will be eligible to receive dental coverage. Advocating for improved access to the Canadian oral health care system is essential to Canadians. We understand that many families find themselves in a difficult position when they consider seeking oral health services. We do not want parents to find themselves in the position where they must decide between their children postponing or forgoing dental care at a time when their teeth are still developing.

In Canada, dental surgery performed under general anaesthesia in pediatric hospitals is the most common day surgery. This procedure accounts for one-third of all surgeries performed on children between the ages of one and five. We know that 57% of children aged six to 11 have had a cavity, with an average of 2.5 teeth affected by decay.

In more severe cases, tooth decay in young children can lead to an infectious disease, one that causes pain, interferes with their sleep and growth, and causes lifelong impacts to oral and general health. It is the children in our communities who have experienced the painful and detrimental effects of poor oral health. It is our responsibility to ensure that no child, present or future, will experience the pain of not receiving essential dental treatments.

The Canada dental benefit will ensure that children who have not had access to routine oral health care will have improved oral health and an improved quality of life by reducing the potential need for more invasive and costly treatments later on in life. The benefit proposed in this legislation would help break the cycle of poor oral health for the youngest Canadians.

The Canada dental benefit would provide direct payments to eligible applicants, totalling up to $650 per year per child for families with an income under $70,000. An estimated $390 will be provided for families with an income of $70,000 to $79,999 and $260 for those with a family income of $80,000 to $90,000.

It is estimated that over 500,000 Canadian children could benefit from this targeted investment of over $900 million. To access the Canada dental benefit, parents or guardians of eligible children would apply through the Canada Revenue Agency. Applicants will need to confirm that their child does not have access to private dental coverage and that they will incur out-of-pocket dental care expenses for which they will use the benefit.

To be eligible for the funds, people may not have received a full reimbursement for treatment under another government plan. They will also need to provide documentation to verify the out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the benefit period. This may include providing receipts to the CRA.

Our government will take action to ensure that Canadians receive the benefit as quickly as possible, so that children may begin receiving necessary dental care. This legislation will give the Minister of Health authority to implement this application-based upfront benefit payment to eligible Canadians later this year.

Our government has established December 1, 2022, as the target implementation date of the Canada dental benefit, pending parliamentary approval and royal assent. The benefit will retroactively cover expenses from October 1, 2022, as long as the child remains eligible until December 1.

In addition to our government's commitment to this program, we will continue to support oral health in Canada for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will continue to work with partners and stakeholders in providing oral health services and making life more affordable.

In budget 2022, our government committed $5.3 billion over five years, and $1.7 billion ongoing, to provide dental care for Canadians who otherwise could not afford it. Our government is working diligently to design and implement a long-term national dental care program to ensure that every Canadian can have access to oral health services.

It will take time to ensure that this complex national program is sustainable long-term. However, it will remain a top priority for our government. We will continue working closely with key stakeholders, industry partners, academics and dentistry associations and organizations to help inform decisions on implementing a national dental care program. Until such time, the proposed Canada dental benefit would provide parents with children under the age of 12 with financial support to help address the children's dental care needs and increase their quality of life.

To provide the time necessary for Health Canada and the CRA to make the necessary preparations to deliver the benefit to Canada, the legislation we are proposing needs to be approved urgently.

I trust that all members will agree that oral health services are essential to Canadians, and join us in supporting this bill that will help thousands of families from coast to coast to coast.

Our government understands that parents want to do what is best for their children, and that financial barriers should not prevent them from accessing the necessary dental care their children require. Passing this bill is an important step toward protecting the oral health of children throughout Canada and ensuring that we eliminate the cycle of forgoing necessary dental care.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I also want to remind all my colleagues in the House of one thing: Bloc Québécois MPs are sent to the House of Commons by Quebeckers to defend the interests of Quebec. Speaking for Quebec is priority for the Bloc Québécois.

When a measure is good for Quebec, we vote in favour; all the better if it is good for the rest of Canada. When it is bad for Quebec, we vote against. It is not complicated. We therefore choose how to vote after assessing a bill.

We voted in favour of referring this bill to committee. We wanted to give the bill a chance. However, in committee, everyone rejected our amendments. That is interesting.

With respect to dental care, I see that a child in Quebec will receive half of what a child in Canada will receive. How can Bloc Québécois MPs vote in favour of such a bill?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, Canadians elected me to represent my riding and to represent the interests of Canada. Unlike the members of the Bloc, who are only interested in their province and only if it helps them, our responsibility in the House is to make sure that all Canadians get the care they need.

The Canada dental benefit is there for all Canadians, and it will be there. If members from Quebec feel that there are some issues that would impact them differently from the rest of Canada, they are more than welcome to submit them.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

NDP

Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, we know that this $500 one-time benefit is going to help so many Canadians, as my colleague said. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not going to solve the bigger issue of the financialization of housing that we are seeing.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we recently sent a letter to the Minister of Housing, Diversity and Inclusion, to call upon the minister to stop the financialization of housing. This included 15 individuals from first nations organizations and others, all asking for change from the Liberal government.

Is the member in agreement that we need to move forward to ensure that housing is not being used as a commodity? Will he be working alongside us to begin making the changes necessary so that Canadians can have access to their human right of housing?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, although I was speaking about dental care particularly, I want to say that housing is a big priority of this government. We are the first and only government that has created a national housing strategy, starting with those who are the most vulnerable: those who are homeless right to those who need senior care.

We have invested well over $30 billion in that program. Particularly in Surrey, British Columbia, I can see we have had four rapid housing initiative projects. We have had tons of new units being built for affordable rental housing. This is an ongoing struggle. It is a challenge that Canada has. We have to ensure that having a home, having a place to stay, is a right, and that every person receives the dignity to have a home that is affordable and is a good place to stay in.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Madam Speaker, a promises is a promise in my house, and it should be the same in this House.

The Liberal government made a promise of $4.5 billion to contribute to mental health. Why it is not fulfilling that promise and is now making another promise that was not in the Liberal platform?

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, I am actually proud to say that, in the very first budget of 2015, we were able to put $700 billion, I know for British Columbia, into the health accord, particularly for mental health services. This was on top of the health transfer.

When it comes time to negotiate with the provinces, which I understand is happening, we will be there. This government has been there every time when it comes to the health care, the dental care and the mental health care of Canadians. We will be there.

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and speak in the House on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. I thought it would be fair to let members know, right up front, that I am planning to vote against this legislation. I know they are always curious about why we vote the way we do, so I would like them know why I am going to be voting that way.

First, I want to set the stage regarding the rental benefit that is in this legislation. We are in an era of the highest inflation that we have had in 40 years. We have food prices that are at double-digit inflation right now. Our housing costs are among the highest in the world. It is very difficult for people to afford to live right now.

Our energy costs are high. They are higher than they need to be because of all the taxes, including the carbon tax that was put on by the current Liberal government. Home heating is more expensive than ever. In fact, this winter many people in Canada will be paying double or more on their home heating bills than they have paid before. It is partly due to the tripling of the carbon tax that is happening.

These are difficult and challenging times for people with low incomes, seniors and also for those who have fixed incomes. It is very difficult for them to find a way to stretch that money to make it work with the increased expenses that we have.

There is an old proverb that says this: Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. I suggest that this plan is in the first category and this is why.

What we need are long-term solutions. We need a way to fix things. This is a short-term band-aid. It is a one-time payment.

The average rent in Canada right now is about $2,000 a month. Take that payment of $500 on a monthly basis and it is a quarter of a month or one week. Realistically, thinking of it over a year, it is $42 a month for a year. The truth is that there probably is not going to be an additional payment of this type during the tenure of the government. If the tenure of the government happens to be four years, which I certainly hope it is not, that would be $10 a month over four years. Ten dollars a month on a $2,000 rent bill makes no difference at all.

Nobody is going to refuse that $500, and I am certain that people need that money. The problem is that it is going to alleviate the problem for today. What about tomorrow, when the next bill comes due? How are they going to do that? This is not a long-term solution.

What is a long-term solution? We could be encouraging more housing and not simply throwing money after housing. I was a home builder for 12 years, so I am well aware of the challenges faced by home builders and housing providers in this country. One of the things that always frustrated me was how our municipalities would slow down the process and gum up the works. When people wanted to get a building permit, for example, it would take months to get one when it should not happen that way. Builders who are experienced and accredited should be able to get building permits quickly.

Members may have heard the term “gatekeepers” used around this place. That is a great example of a gatekeeper. They are some of the municipal systems that are in place to restrict and prevent things from happening in a quick way. That is something that we need to encourage them to fix.

Another thing is reducing red tape in bureaucracy in general. I am thinking of the building codes. We keep having more complicated building codes piled on top of building codes. Every time a new requirement is added to the building code it adds costs to the product they are building, which in this case is a house, and to the time to build it. Building codes are another thing that really reduce and end up restricting the amount of housing supply.

Ultimately, we need lower interest rates because everybody has to pay and it affects the cost to everybody. How can we lower our interest rates? What we need to do to lower our interest rates is build up our economy. Some people may not realize it, but over the last three years, most of the jobs that have been created in this country have been government jobs. They have not been private sector jobs. They have been government jobs that are ultimately paid for, through our taxes, by all of us who are working.

What we really need to do is focus on the natural resources that we have in our country. When we develop, sell and export our natural resources, that produces not only wealth for our country, but also tax revenues for the various levels of government, including the federal government. We have oil and natural gas. They are the third-largest reserves in the world. Canada has the best standards, when it comes to environment and labour, and we pay very well in this country. Compared to almost every other country, we are far ahead in being a better producer and a more environmentally friendly producer of oil and gas. We need to do that.

We need pipelines so that we can get our products to the east and to the west. Right now, we cannot help Europe very much with natural gas, which is a huge need because of the war in Ukraine. It is a shame that we cannot help Europe when we have exactly what it needs.

We have rare earth elements, and in my riding we have potash. We have potash all over the place in Saskatchewan and have a company called Nutrien. It has thousands of employees in Saskatoon, and we lead the world in potash production. The government is trying to push through a reduction in potash use in our agriculture sector, which is simply going to reduce the amount of output and the amount of food that is grown, ultimately raising the price of food.

We cannot do that. We need to encourage non-government jobs and private sector jobs that create wealth for our country and raise tax revenue. Ultimately, this will stop inflation, and if we stop inflation we can stop our deficits and our borrowing and can start to enjoy the benefits of a strong economy. To do that, we especially need a “pay as you go” law so that when new spending is introduced, we find a way to save it somewhere else. The result of that would be low inflation and lower taxes. That would be teaching a man to fish.

I want to talk a bit about the dental benefit. There is a dental health crisis in Canada. Actually, no, there is not. Now that I think about it, it is a mental health crisis. That is what is happening in Canada. I have not heard of a dental health crisis in this country.

What about the mental health crisis? One in five Canadians experiences mental illness. Every day in Canada, an average of 10 people die by suicide. Mental health challenges affect every Canadian in different ways. Some of us struggle with diagnosed conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Others struggle in silence with shame, eating disorders, addictions or alcoholism.

Causes are hard to pinpoint. It can be trauma or tragedy of the worst kind in childhood or adulthood. It can be a physiological chemical imbalance. The DNA and genes we inherit from our parents play a role. Learned behaviour growing up at home, in school and in the workplace can also contribute. Add in race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, income bracket and other factors, and treatment, unfortunately, is haphazard. Some mental health disorders are diagnosed by the police and treated by the courts with prison sentences. Other people are fortunate enough to find themselves a physician, psychiatrist or other professional who can help them.

What we do not have in this country is an actual strategy to tackle mental health, particularly the causes, symptoms and treatments, on a national scale. Over two years ago, my Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George proposed a national suicide hotline. Surely we would think this is a no-brainer the Liberal government could support for Canadians. However, if I dialed 988 right now, it would tell me to hang up and call a different number in English only.

What should we do when a francophone experiences a mental health crisis?

We therefore continue to wait. In the last election, the Liberals promised $4.5 billion for mental health, and we continue to wait. Instead, we have $700 million for the dental health crisis.

Why are we looking at this legislation today? We have a problem to be solved. All legislation is like this: There is a problem to be solved and legislation is supposedly going to fix that problem. What are the problems we have today? We have the cost of living. The rental benefit would not fix that; it is a short-term band-aid. We have a mental health crisis, and this dental benefit certainly would not fix that. Why do we have this legislation? Was there research, focus groups or surveys? I doubt there are many people who want a short-term band-aid on our economy. I also doubt there are many people who want to spend more money and put us into more debt.

I suggest this bill is simply the equivalent of a sideshow, a carny trick or a shiny object in the window meant to distract Canadians. It is meant to have Canadians believe that action is being taken to address poverty and affordability issues while nothing is really being done. Bill C-31 is like those fixed games at the carnival. It is flashy and exciting looking, but as we keep playing the NDP-Liberal game and keep losing our hard-earned money with little return, we realize it is a sucker's game. They are taking money away from us in the way of higher taxes. They continue to have Canadians pay more hoping to get that oversized stuffed animal. Then they give us a free play and another free play, except in this one they say we do not have to pay for it. However, it is our grandchildren who are going to be paying for it in the future when our national debt comes due. In the meantime, they give us some scraps. The government is running that kind of game.

There is a better way to run our country. For years, the Conservatives have warned that there are consequences from the Liberal-NDP's actions. The Conservatives call on the government to scour government spending, find savings for proposals like the $35-billion Canada Infrastructure Bank and stop useless spending like the $54-million ArriveCAN app. Finally, the Conservatives call on the Liberals to cancel all planned tax increases, including the payroll tax hikes on January 1 and the tripling of the carbon tax on gas—

Motions in AmendmentCost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.Government Orders

October 27th, 2022 / 11:35 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development.