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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about passport delivery. Being that his is a neighbouring riding to mine, I would encourage him to tell his constituents that they can travel a much shorter distance than they would otherwise have to in order to get the 10-day turnaround on passports if they come to Kingston. The Service Canada office there offers the 10-day turnaround, and I can guarantee that his constituents will have their passports within 10 days or less.

More important, the member talked about the healthy smiles program that exists in Ontario, as though that is some kind of substitute for what we are talking about today. It is not. In order to qualify for healthy smiles in Ontario, people have to be on ODSP, on the Ontario works program or on another social assistance program. It is not equivalent to what is being proposed here. Ontario Conservative after Ontario Conservative has stood up and tried to equate the two. They are not the same. This member knows this. He knows better and he should not be suggesting that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, my constituents in Cornwall, Morrisburg and Crysler thank the Liberal member for advising them to drive to Kingston or Ottawa or Montreal to get their passports. It is taking three months for people to get their passports. My point is that the Liberal government has zero ability to effectively manage programs. If it cannot get a passport right, I do not think it is going to have any competence or any ability to administer a whole new layer.

What I will say about the Ontario program, for the member, is a chance for me to reiterate the point I just made. When there is a system in place provincially to administer, instead of partnering with provinces on anything, including increased health transfers, mental health funding and long-term care, the Liberals are spending tens of millions of dollars on a double new bureaucracy in Ottawa and not actually working with provinces and using existing programs and structures.

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

Madam Speaker, let me get this straight. The Conservative position on this argument is that the taxpayer-funded dental care benefits that they enjoy as members of Parliament are okay, but when we are fighting to extend the same service to their constituents, that is not okay. That is what the Conservatives are saying publicly, just so we are clear.

We have millions of Canadians who are not covered by provincial programs. That is a fact. The Conservatives like talking about the term “gatekeepers”. Why are Conservatives being gatekeepers against kids under 12 getting the dental care that they enjoy?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, people on Vancouver Island do not want to see the carbon tax triple in terms of what we are having over the course of the next little while.

What I will say about this is that we are in this cost of living crisis, in the name of that bill, because of the spending habits of the Liberals and New Democrats for the past seven and eight years and it is only going to get worse. We are in this crisis and we are in this problem because we have two parties working together that do not care about balancing a budget or our economy or managing it. They are printing new money. They are adding debt and deficit, and they are leaving it to future people to actually pay the bill. Every single dollar of this program is going on a credit card. It is driving inflation and it is driving the very problem we are facing in this House of 40-year-high inflation and no date and no timeline to ever balance the budget again. The Liberals will just leave that for people in a good strong Conservative government to finally fix when we get around to it.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague believes that it is important for children under 12 to have dental care.

However, on the issue of priorities in health and social services, can he tell us who he thinks is best placed to determine, in each province, the health care and social services that need to be offered to the least fortunate populations and the population as a whole? What jurisdiction should deal with and handle this issue?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want the House to remain calm as I make this statement, which I do not say too often. The comments made tonight from the Bloc Québécois are exactly the argument that we are making as well, which is that a double layer of bureaucracy and an Ottawa-knows-best approach will not work.

When it comes to the dental programs, we do not need to create another layer of bureaucracy when it comes to health spending. We can allow provinces, provide proper transfers, reduce red tape, reduce bureaucracy and have more government-efficient spending, including allowing the Province of Quebec to run its own health care programs. That is not unreasonable. I think most Canadians agree.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight on the subject of Bill C-31, which is meant to help address the affordability of day-to-day life for Canadians. I want to start with what I often do in speeches like this, which is what I appreciate about what is in this bill.

We see the beginnings of a dental care program in the bill. When I knock on doors in my community, as I have for the last four years, and I ask my neighbours what is most important to them, so often I hear some variation of an interest in truly universal health care from mental health to eye care and dental care as well.

In this bill, there is a proposal for an interim dental benefit for children under the age of 12, for those without dental coverage already and with an income of less than $90,000 in their household, providing their parents or guardians with upfront, tax-free funds to cover dental expenses eligible back to October 1 of this year. If this House passes Bill C-31, it would provide payments of up to $650 per child. This is an important, necessary measure and it is being proposed because it has been prioritized by this House, specifically in the supply and confidence agreement between the governing party and the NDP.

That being said, it is unfortunate that there are some items, like funding the Canada disability benefit, that are not there and are not being similarly prioritized. There are also other items in this same agreement that are not being followed all together, like addressing the climate crisis through early moves to phase out fossil fuel subsidies through public financing.

What we are actually seeing in this year's budget is a new fossil fuel subsidy being introduced. It is a tax credit for an unproven technology called carbon capture and storage to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. What is encouraging and what I am glad to see in this bill is parliamentarians working together for what is in the best interests of Canadians across the country, and dental care is a critical part of that.

The second part of this bill is, in my view, a missed opportunity. There is a $500 rental housing benefit proposed in the bill. As is the case in many communities across the country, in Kitchener, the average rent is around $1,725 a month. This benefit is a drop in the bucket in the midst of a crisis. More importantly, it does not address the root cause of this crisis.

I would like to suggest that we start by naming and being clear that this is a housing crisis that we are in across the country. As I do that, I also want to help my colleagues understand what that looks like in my community specifically.

There are a lot of parliamentarians in this place who like talking about things that have tripled. It is a dubious claim, but this one is actually quite accurate. The homeless population in Waterloo region has tripled from just over 300 to over 1,000 people who are living unsheltered. Those are members of my community who we are collectively letting down.

Homes continue to become increasingly unaffordable. As I mentioned rent earlier, we can talk about house prices also. Since 2005, house prices have gone up 275%, when wages have increased a meagre 42%.

What does that mean? It means that back then, house prices were three times more than the average annual income. Today, they are eight times more than the average annual income. That means, for a young person in my community, buying a home is not even an option and, increasingly, renting one is not either. For those who are on the wait-list for an affordable one-bedroom unit, that wait-list is almost eight years.

It is obvious that all levels of government, the federal government included, need to meaningfully address this crisis. The federal government, in my view, has two ways of doing this. One is recognizing that the federal government has the largest budget of any level.

It is why I am glad in this year's budget we did see $1.5 billion in the rapid housing initiative and another $1.5 billion for co-op housing. This is getting us closer to the level co-op housing used to be funded at. I would encourage the governing party to ensure that this money is spent and that in future budgets we get closer to where those funding levels were.

The federal government, of course, also sets the market conditions, and this is where we have the conversation about it being only supply and demand. Well, that is not totally true. It is supply and demand within the conditions the government sets. Homes should be places where people live and not commodities for investors to trade. If some corporate investor wants to make a bunch of money, I would encourage them to invest in the stock market and not do it on the backs of young people and other low-income folks in my community.

The governing party could fix this by removing incentives for corporate landlords to treat our housing market like the stock market. I will give an example. I was speaking with Omar in my community last week. He is lucky that his rent is a fairly reasonable amount. The institutional investor who owns the apartment building he is in recently painted the exterior of the building, and then Omar saw the rental notices coming in slowly, with increase after increase beyond the Ontario guideline. They demanded that he pay for these increases with interest on top.

Omar is lucky in that he knows this is not appropriate. He knows that this is a bullying tactic by his landlord. All the same, there is a level of anxiety when he gets a notice in the mail saying there is interest due on top. However, he knows what the landlord is really doing: trying to bully him to leave so that when he does, they jack up the rent. This is what we are seeing in communities across the country, and in this place we have a role to play to address it.

One example of these institutional landlords is real estate investment trusts, which have grown their ownership portfolios. In 1996, they did not own any rental suites across the country. Today, they own nearly 200,000. In fact, institutional investors across the country today own between 20% and 30% of our country's purpose-built rental housing stock. We do not know exactly how much, because another issue is that we do not have proper disclosures from these corporate investors in our real estate market and in our homes. However, we do know that they are in housing not for what they can contribute, but for what they can take out of it, which is the largest return possible.

This is the reason I introduced Motion No. 71 on the floor of the House. It calls for simply taxing real estate investment trusts, one type of corporate investor, at the regular corporate tax rate, without the exemption they currently enjoy and that currently tilts the market in their favour. If we did that, it would be a new revenue that we could use to invest in the affordable housing that I am pretty sure almost every parliamentarian in this place wants to see built.

One way to build more of it is to ensure that large corporate investors are paying their fair share and that we use the revenues to build that housing. It was a Conservative finance minister back in 2006 who began to remove some of these tax exemptions for various income trusts. I would encourage the governing party to simply take the text of this motion and put it in the fall economic statement and budget 2023. In fact, it could announce this tomorrow, if it likes, to ensure that we address the fact that homes should be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade.

We will often hear that we need to do more studies. Well, the good news is that the studies have already been done. The Shift Directives have called for the removal of a tax exemption for real estate investment trusts. The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate has called for the same, in a study written by a researcher from the University of Waterloo, Martine August, as has the Social Development Centre Waterloo Region in my community. From local groups to national groups, there is a unified voice saying this is a reasonable measure that will meaningfully begin to address the commodification of housing.

In conclusion, as is the case for my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will be proudly supporting this legislation since it includes important measures that go in the right direction. However, if the governing party is serious about addressing the housing crisis, I would encourage it to demonstrate that through more meaningful legislative action.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a very important intervention at a time when the cost of living issue is so critical for Canadians. I just want to give a word of advice, or make a comment, related to the fact that we can do multiple things at once.

The member speaks about the need to make sure we tackle the real estate investment trusts that are ravaging low-income communities, including my own in Edmonton Griesbach, but I want to mention dental care and getting support to young Canadians, 500,000 of them. Would the member please elaborate on the fact that this benefit is going to be of such immense benefit to the people in his community and to children in particular? Would he talk about how dental care is going to change the lives of so many children in his riding?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. It is the reason I started my speech with exactly that. I think it is important that we work toward a sense of what is the common ground in this place.

What I appreciate about what is in this bill is that it is moving us toward dental care. I have heard the member for Edmonton Griesbach speak about how important that is for his community, and it is for mine also. It is an important measure that is only happening as a result of collaboration among parliamentarians in this place.

What is also true is that this is a missed opportunity. The $500 benefit is not going to meaningfully address the housing crisis. There is an opportunity for the governing party to go much further here.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with a lot of what my hon. colleague had to say. I will go back to one of the points where we might disagree, but I will ask the question in a reasonable manner.

He mentioned budget 2022, which included incentives for carbon capture. I know that he and I differ on our ideology and vision about the transition toward a low-carbon economy. I think Canadian oil and gas is still going to play an important role in the days ahead, particularly after the war in Ukraine, which is continuing. We have talked about changing geopolitical patterns from a trade perspective.

Just recently, oil and gas companies announced 25 billion dollars' worth of investments in this. I take notice that it is not the only technology that should be driven forward, but notwithstanding that he may not completely agree with it, does he at least recognize this as an important change from the private sector that the government is helping to enhance, among the other measures we are pursuing?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think if we had more questions addressed in the way the member for Kings—Hants just did, this place would be much more productive.

He is right. We do not agree on this, and we have spoken about this in the House before. However, the reason we do not agree is not ideology; it is science. We are in a climate emergency. As a result, it is my view, and that of many advocates across the country, that this is not a time to be giving oil and gas companies more money to invest in unproven technologies. Rather, let us give it to homeowners and workers across the country to invest in the proven solutions that we already know. To put it another way, if the oil and gas industry thinks carbon capture is so great, it can invest in it itself. It should not take $8.6 billion of taxpayer money to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. It was rigorous and well researched. We can see that he knows his constituents and his community. It is always moving to see members who have such a good understanding of the needs of their community.

My question is quite simple. The federal government is known to have dabbled in social programs in the past. For example, it funded a program for the homeless for a few years. Then it changed the rules of the game and disengaged.

Who got stuck with the full bill and less funding? It is the provinces.

Is my colleague not concerned that by becoming involved in a major program without the provinces' agreement, the federal government is meeting a need but that the provinces will not be able to cover the cost down the road and will have to pay the political price?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will quickly respond to my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît by saying that, in my opinion, it is important that all levels of government work together with all the tools at their disposal.

I believe that the federal government has a role to play in this country with respect to health care. That is why I support this bill.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I was elected in 2015, I committed to the constituents of the riding of Waterloo that I would listen to the diversity of their voices and represent them in this place.

Tonight, we are here until midnight to debate Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, as it became the only way to bring it to a vote. I hear from many constituents, and it is important that I rise and share what this legislation would do.

This legislation would enact the dental benefit act. Dental care is essential to overall health, yet in Canada, one-third of the population cannot afford it. Our support of the development of a national dental care program is part of our government's commitment to improving and strengthening Canada's publicly funded health care system. Also, this legislation would enact the rental housing benefit act, which would provide a one-time $500 payment to eligible renters. This benefit would provide a one-time Canada housing benefit top-up payment of $500 to 1.8 million renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

I will focus my comments on what our government is doing to help Canadians and constituents within the riding of Waterloo. The steps we are taking are in direct response to what we have been hearing from Canadians.

In Waterloo, I hear from constituents who have shared that it is becoming increasingly challenging to find a safe and affordable place to call home. We know that the high cost of living is making affordable housing even less attainable for far too many Canadians, particularly renters in communities across the country, including in the riding of Waterloo.

I hear from constituents who are receiving some much-needed relief through benefits that our government has advanced. I have two examples: first, the tax-free Canada child benefit, which is helping families with children who need it most; second, the Canada housing benefit, which is co-funded between the federal and provincial or territorial governments and is delivered by the provinces and territories. To make this happen, our government worked with provinces and territories to create 13 Canada housing benefit initiatives, one for each jurisdiction, which are based on local needs and priorities.

Our government firmly believes that Canadians deserve a safe and affordable place to call home, and that is why we are making historic investments to rapidly create more affordable housing for communities through our $72-billion national housing strategy.

The national housing strategy is having a direct benefit in the region of Waterloo. Last year, our government announced an investment of $8.2 million for the rapid housing initiative. This investment, and a partnership between the YWCA, the City of Kitchener and the region of Waterloo, is designed to support women experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. This year, 41 women each got an apartment in this newly built complex home. Listening to local needs, this investment is part of the YWCA's supportive housing program and includes mental health and addiction supports onsite.

This year, our government announced investments of $7.1 million for two more projects in the region of Waterloo. The first project, managed by the KW Urban Native Wigwam Project, will see 30 units created for indigenous people, and 16 will be for indigenous women and their children. The second building will be administered by OneRoof Youth Services and will see the creation of 44 supportive housing units, including 25 units for homeless people, 15 units for people with mental health or substance use issues and four units for indigenous peoples.

This year, the Government of Canada also announced an investment of $15 million in an affordable housing project geared towards low-income tenants and other vulnerable residents, including those with mental health challenges or physical disabilities and members of the indigenous communities.

There are many other examples I would like to share, as it is too often that we do not share the benefits and outcomes of the investments that our government is making.

I have met with constituents, and these people have shared what having a safe and affordable place to call home means to them. They shared how having a home allows them to better contribute and live authentic, meaningful lives. They shared that they appreciate the investments that are coming from the Government of Canada, and I admire how they continue to advocate to ensure we build more units. They continue to advocate for our government to do more because we all believe that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home.

The legislation we are debating today includes a new one-time tax-free $500 federal benefit for eligible Canadian renters that is 100% federally funded. This one-time top-up would not reduce other federal income-based benefits, including the Canada workers benefit, the tax-free Canada child benefit, the goods and services tax credit and the guaranteed income supplement.

An estimated 1.8 million low-income renters, including students who are struggling with the cost of housing, would be eligible for this new support. This payment would be launched by the end of the year, pending parliamentary approval and royal assent of this legislation, and that is why I call on all colleagues to see swift passage of this legislation.

It is okay for members to disagree. Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents, and rest assured, I hear from a diversity of perspectives. I believe we should all stand in our place and vote.

It is clear that I will be supporting this legislation, as a top-up is part of our government's plan to make housing more affordable for Canadians. Our plan also includes measures to put Canada on the path to doubling housing construction over the next decade, to help Canadians save for and buy their first home, and to ban foreign ownership and curb speculation as they both make housing more expensive for Canadians.

We know Canadians are feeling the rising cost of living. We in this House can do something about it. We have been hearing from many people who are participating in this debate. There is definitely at least one party that has a challenge with the government working with other parties to be able to deliver better outcomes for Canadians.

When I was running for office and knocking on doors, Canadians said they expect us in this House to work together to deliver for them. It is not about partisan politics. This is the House of Commons, where we represent the diversity of perspectives we are elected to represent.

There are people in the riding of Waterloo who may choose not to vote for me, but what they have to say matters to me. I, as their member of Parliament, as their elected representative, find it important and necessary to listen to the diversity of their perspectives. That is what debate is all about. My role as a member of Parliament is to represent them here.

I also hear that Canadians want us to work across different levels of government. It is true different levels of government have different jurisdictions and different responsibilities. However, we have demonstrated time and time again that with the federal government being a partner and working with the provinces and territories, we actually can do more to help the constituents we are elected to represent. I will not stop doing that.

This legislation has had a good debate, and it is really clear where all the parties stand. It is important we bring this to a vote. It will go to committee, and hopefully it will come back quickly so we can send it to the Senate for it to do its important work to ensure this benefit gets into the pockets of Canadians who are struggling. We talk about affordability all the time. We in this House can do something about it.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to this legislation tonight. It is important we not only talk about what more we need to do but also represent and reflect upon the actions we have taken and their outcomes. When I hear from people who now have a safe and affordable place to call home and I see the satisfaction they are feeling, I want to see more people in that spot. I will do whatever I can to represent their voices and to ensure every Canadian has a safe and affordable place to call home.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill is going to spend another $10 billion. The government's national debt is already over a trillion dollars. The latest update shows consumer debt is at $2.24 trillion, which is a 16% increase from the prepandemic levels with about a 10% increase year over year from the second quarter of last year.

We are talking about the cost of living relief, but I am wondering how adding another $10 billion to a program the provincial governments are not necessarily asking for is going to help. They are looking for other health care transfers and spending.