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

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mister Speaker, I rise today to speak of the reality most Canadians are currently facing with the increased costs of groceries and other basic necessities.

Our government understands these concerns and has done a lot to provide critical relief to those most affected by global inflation. Last night, Bill C-31 was passed through the House, an act respecting the cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. This bill would provide up to $1,300 a year for eligible families to access dental services so that children 12 and under can receive regular cleaning and preventative services. As well, those who rent their homes would also get relief with a Canada housing benefit top-up payment of $500, which would see 1.8 million renters get help with the cost of housing.

I am very proud of the work our government has done to help Canadians, such as the affordable child care benefit and the recent GST top-up. The passing of this bill would continue to help those most in need during these challenging times.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, I very much support Bill C-31. I have heard over and over again that people get dental care if they need it in this country. I have not shared any personal stories up until now, but I have enough respect for the member for Cariboo—Prince George to say that when I was a single mom and earning under $30,000 per year, I put the priority on getting my daughter to a dentist. I never could afford dental care. I have had a lot of teeth pulled out, and when I got to be able to have some money I went in and got replacements, because it really got in the way of being able to be successful in any way, not to be able to speak properly. I certainly could not pronounce in French “vérificatrice générale”. That was impossible with my situation.

I am urging members across the way to vote for this bill, despite the fact that I agree with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George that an important piece of legislation should not be pushed through in two hours in committee. That is offensive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that, because while the Liberals will go on and on saying that people are heckling them, you will notice that I did not even acknowledge them. They can say anything they want to say. It does not bother me at all, because what they are saying is total hogwash. They are triggering. What Bill C-31 is called in the political sphere is a wedge issue, because Liberals are using it to score political points.

The new Conservative leader went out of his way to tell Canadians that we care for them. We want to let everyday, regular people know that we actually have a plan and we care. We want people to have more money in their pockets. What we have seen from the Liberal government and the NDP, which has propped the Liberals up all the way, is that they are going to triple the price for food, triple the price for fuel and triple the price for heating. Yes, members heard that correctly, and I will repeat it for the Liberal-NDP coalition. Its members are going to triple, triple, triple prices. I know they hate that, so I said it again.

Conservatives want life to be more affordable. What is shameful is that we know our friends in Atlantic Canada are struggling after having just gone through a horrendous natural disaster, a weather event. They are struggling. Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada are begging the government to please cancel raising the carbon tax, because they are struggling.

We also know from a report that was just released today that 1.5 million Canadians accessed food banks last month. That is an increase of 35% year over year. That is happening under the Liberal government's watch. When we tell Liberals that, they blame everybody else but themselves.

I will agree that inflation can be caused by a number of things, including foreign issues, but it starts at home. The government has the keys to the bank. As our friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle said in his great speech, it starts here at home. Over $176 billion of spending that Liberals say was for COVID had nothing to do with COVID, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report states that today.

We do not want to see people evicted, and we do not want to see kids suffering in pain because they cannot afford a dentist. We have focused the majority of our questions in question period, since electing our new leader, on affordability. While the Liberals and NDP want to spend, spend, spend, we have been talking about making an actual difference in people's lives.

Bill C-31 is not about providing access to dental care or making rent more affordable. It is about maintaining power. Let us be very clear that it is about the Prime Minister's tenuous, at best, hold on his party. There are wolves at the door. They are lining up, getting their soldiers and their organization together to take over power and be the next leaders of the Liberal Party, because the Prime Minister is struggling to hold on to his power.

It is about an NDP leader who is also struggling with his own internal party politics. If members of the NDP-Liberal coalition were concerned about dental care or rent, they would have wanted a fulsome debate at committee. They would have wanted a fulsome debate here in this chamber. They would have wanted to ensure the best legislation possible.

Let me throw this out. This is not a plan or a program. Programs have checks and balances in place, and this has none. Legislation that would create a program to help kids who are in pain and that would help single moms pay their rent or go to a dentist is a program. This is not the case.

I have been a member of Parliament for seven years and have sat in on countless bill reviews. I have sat in on countless committee meetings, and what I witnessed Monday night was unbelievable. My colleague from Mirabel will attest to this.

What we saw was that the government gave committee members literally two hours to study a piece of legislation, two hours that will commit the Canadian government to $10 billion of spending. In fact, just talking right now about this actually triggers me even more. It makes me more angry.

The government voted down my hon. colleague from Mirabel's amendments for a certain clause for the reason that committees cannot attach further financial obligations to the government. The amendments were voted down, yet when the NDP brought amendments to this piece of legislation to committee with attached financial obligations, the chair ruled those in order. As a matter of fact, the Liberals and the NDP rammed them through.

As parliamentarians we have a job to do. We were sent here by the people from our ridings to represent them. We were sent here to get the best legislation possible. We were sent here to work together. I have stood in the House so much over this time to talk about mental health and to talk about health. I think all colleagues will agree I take a very non-partisan approach to this. If we can work together to get things done that is the best for Canadians.

What we have seen with the government and its friends, the NDP, the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, is that they do not care what the rest of us and the rest of Canadians think. They will stand in the House and put on a great show for video clips and social media, yet they are misleading Canadians every step of the way.

I understand that partisan politics can get in the way. I know that when we are in this chamber sometimes the level of debate get pretty low. That said, I have always believed in the committee process. I have always believed that committees are where we as parliamentarians do our best work. At least, that is what I had hoped.

I remember a time at the fisheries committee a few years ago when there were a number of amendments that we thought would make the bill better. At that time I was getting up daily in question period to hammer the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the clam scam. Does everybody remember the clam scam? It was when the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gave a lucrative contract to a former member of Parliament, a former Liberal member of Parliament, and possibly even some family members of the fisheries minister.

That meant that jobs were lost in the community at Grand Bank. I fought tirelessly for them and not one member from the Atlantic Canada caucus stood up to do that. Why? It was because they were silenced. They were muzzled by the front bench.

When the bill came to committee with some amendments, I reached out to the hon. members from across the way and told them some of our concerns. We were at it every day in question period, but when it came to getting that bill right, we actually got the work done. We got those amendments passed. That is an example of a committee working in the best interests of Canadians.

At committee, the members were listened to. We heard from over 20 witnesses. We heard from the minister. We heard from officials. When it came to doing the clause-by-clause, the members of the committee agreed with some of our amendments and we managed to pass a number of them. We worked together to have a better piece of legislation and Canadians were better for it. Did we get everything we wanted? No, we did not, but we got a few. We had an opportunity to actually study the bill, not like what we saw on Monday night.

We were told we had to have the amendments in before we actually got a chance to hear from the witnesses. On Monday we were supposed to analyze a bill that was going to spend, as I said, $10 billion. Do members know how many days we were allowed to study that bill? It was one day for two hours. Do members know how many witnesses we had? We had five, with two ministers who could not answer a question if their lives depended on it. They could not answer these questions. When we offered thoughtful questions to the officials, they were stymied. It was two hours and then we had to immediately move into clause-by-clause. Was that really offering parliamentarians of all stripes an opportunity to do their best work for Canadians? I would offer that it was not. It was very discouraging.

I get that the Liberal-NDP coalition members do not care about inflation. They do not care about budgets. They do not care about robbing Peter to pay Paul. They do not really care about families. They think the government has this magic pot of gold or magic pot of money that all this money comes from, or perhaps it is a tree. It is probably not a tree, but seriously, this is such an utter sham. It really, truly is, and it is more of what we see with this Liberal-NDP coalition.

The worst part of all this is that the Liberal and NDP members of the committee attempted to usurp the government's power and increase the spending. I mentioned that. Members heard me correctly. After a negative ruling by the chair on two Bloc amendments, if I remember correctly, that would have increased spending, the coalition members introduced an NDP amendment to spend even more than $10 billion. There was no consultation, no cabinet approval and no authorization. They just agreed to add more money. When the chair ruled them out of order, they challenged the chair and they rammed it through. We voted them down and they amended the bill anyway. Of course, we objected. We pointed out that this would require a royal recommendation, but they did not want to hear that.

They did not want to debate dental care for kids. They did not want to debate money for rent. The Liberal members of the committee supported the NDP amendment because they did not want to lose power. They did not want to jeopardize their agreement with the third party. The fix was in before the bill even came to committee. The fix was in to get this passed without scrutiny, without accountability and without care for kids and families.

When the member for Vancouver East moved her amendment to increase the rental eligibility, the chair correctly ruled the motion inadmissible. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states this on page 772. I know I do not have to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to read it into the record anyway. It states:

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.

Despite this clear and concise ruling, the Liberals and NDP voted down the chair and proceeded, regardless. It was not until the bill was reported back to the House on Tuesday that the mistake was fixed.

I am going to finish with this. The Canadian Dental Association said this:

The single best way to quickly improve oral health and increase access to dental care is to invest in, and enhance, existing provincial and territorial dental programs. These programs are significantly underfunded and are almost exclusively financed by provincial and territorial governments.

We are surprised by today’s announcement that the federal government is considering a new, large-scale, federal dental program. It will be important to ensure that any new initiatives do not disrupt access to dental care for the large majority of Canadians who already have dental coverage through employer-provided health benefits.

The Liberal member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River summed it up best on Monday night with his second question. He admitted that this bill was nothing really about dental care. He said this:

There are a lot of costs in life. Dental is certainly one of them, but you have to buy your kid shoes, you have to buy them food and you have to pay for their minor league hockey. These are all costs for families.

I do not disagree with the member. Families could always use more money, and we could use a program that has checks and balances in place so that this money would actually get to kids and families who need it the most, and so that it would be consistent and not a one-time top-up that the government is going to claw back anyway. We also heard through our study that first nations children are not eligible for this program.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the cost of living relief act. As the health critic for the NDP, I am particularly pleased to speak to the dental aspects of this legislation.

Over 50 years ago, Tommy Douglas used his influence in a minority Parliament in this House to build our public health care system. This made access to physician and hospital care a right of citizenship in Canada rather than a privilege. This cherished institution, our public health care system, defines us as a nation. It is an affirmation that we will take care of each other when we are at our most vulnerable. It is a reflection of our commitment to equality and justice.

However, our health care system is not perfect, and it is not complete. Many important health services remain uncovered across Canada. For these, patients remain at the mercy of their ability to pay. In this minority Parliament, Canada's New Democrats are once again putting progress ahead of partisanship to address one of the most glaring gaps in our public system, that of dental care.

Through our confidence and supply agreement with the government, New Democrats were able to compel the Liberals to commit to a national dental care program for uninsured individuals and families with an income of less than $90,000 per year, with no copayments whatsoever for anyone making under $70,000 annually. We intend to build a comprehensive dental plan that would permit millions of Canadians to get dental services equal to what other insured Canadians enjoy, and ultimately to fold dental care into our public health care system as a universal publicly insured benefit, which it was always intended to be.

The Canada dental benefit in this legislation is the first stage of this plan. It is a bridge payment that would allow children under 12 to get the dental care they need urgently while a comprehensive dental plan is developed by the end of 2023 for children under 18, seniors over 65 and people living with disabilities. That plan would then expand to all families in Canada with an income under $90,000 per year in 2025, covering an estimated nine million Canadians.

The Canada dental benefit would provide eligible parents or guardians with up to $1,300 in direct, upfront, tax-free payments to cover dental expenses for their children under 12 years old over the next 14 months. The target implementation date for the program is December 1, 2022, and it would cover expenses retroactive to October 1.

To access this benefit, parents or guardians would need to apply through the Canada Revenue Agency and attest that their child does not have access to private dental care insurance, that they will have out of pocket dental care expenses for which they would use the benefit, and that they understand they would need to retain documentation to verify that out of pocket dental care expenses occurred if required. There would be an effective audit and enforcement policy. Half a million kids across Canada would receive urgently needed investment for dental care.

Unmet oral health needs impose significant costs on other parts of our public health care system through hospital stays for dental emergencies, as well as the long-term impacts of poor oral health on systemic disease. This is particularly true for children, since good oral health practices in childhood serve as a foundation for the rest of a person's life. We know oral health is an essential component of overall health. Tooth decay remains the most common childhood chronic disease in Canada. It is the most common reason for Canadian children to undergo day surgery, and it is a leading cause for children missing school.

In addition to the pain and risk of an infection caused by tooth decay, it can also negatively impact a child's eating, sleeping and growth patterns while increasing the need for treatment later in life. Numbers cannot quantify the impacts of pain, the social impacts and economic losses suffered by people with untreated dental problems, yet today as we debate this bill in this House, over 35% of Canadians, some 13 million Canadians, have no dental insurance whatsoever, and nearly seven million Canadians who may even have it avoid going to the dentist every year because of the cost.

Unsurprisingly, this impacts low-income and marginalized Canadians the most. Canada's most vulnerable people have the highest rates of dental decay and disease and the worst access to oral health care services. According to the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, 50% of low-income Canadians, along with the majority of seniors over the age of 60, have no dental coverage.

This is a serious public health issue. Untreated oral health issues lead to many serious conditions, such as cardiac problems, diabetes complications, low birth rates and fatal infections, not to mention the dental health effects of chronic pain, facial disfiguration and shame. That is why Canada's New Democrats have been driving the agenda forward on universal dental care for many years.

At their first meeting following the 2019 election, the leader of the NDP pressed the Prime Minister to work across party lines to implement dental care for all Canadians. I was pleased to see the government acknowledge this NDP priority in the 2019 Speech from the Throne and was heartened to see in the Minister of Health's mandate letter at that time a direction to “Work with Parliament to study and analyze the possibility of national dental care.” Unfortunately, the Liberal government failed to take any action on this commitment in the last Parliament.

In fact, when the New Democrats put forward a plan to fund a national dental care plan by taxing the windfalls reaped by pandemic profiteers and the ultrarich, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against that proposal. When my former caucus colleague Jack Harris introduced a motion in June 2021 to establish a federal dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with household incomes under $90,000 per year, like this plan, as a first step toward universal public dental care, again the Liberals and Conservatives voted it down.

Today, we have an opportunity finally to move forward on national dental care in Canada. We must not squander it. This will represent the single greatest expansion of public health care in a generation and the largest investment in oral health in Canadian history. To those MPs who oppose this initiative, I wish to remind them that every member of this House receives dental coverage for themselves and their families paid for by taxpayers. When they vote against this bill, they are taking taxpayer dollars to cover their teeth and are saying no to the poorest Canadians for theirs, and that is a shame of the most grotesque proportions.

I see people on the Conservative side showing us their teeth. That is disgusting.

For those who claim we simply cannot afford to establish an urgently needed program, let us look at some numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the Canada dental benefit will cost $703 million in total, and once fully implemented our national dental care plan will cost approximately $1.7 billion a year to provide coverage for nine million Canadians.

We currently spend about $309 billion every year on health care in Canada. This dental care plan represents less than 1% of that, and that does not account for the savings we will achieve due to fewer emergency room visits and avoided serious health complications from untreated oral health issues later in life.

Oral health is not a luxury; it is essential. Those who say we cannot afford dental care now because we have to fix our Canada health care system do not understand that oral health care is primary health care. We would never ask people what they would rather have, heart or cataract surgery, their broken leg fixed or hip surgery. Having one's mouth covered is as much a part of one's overall health as any other part of one's body.

To those who say that the provinces or territories already cover dental care, I say this: That is a myth. There is no province or territory that covers all citizens with no copays in a comprehensive way for people making under $70,000. Every program I have looked at in this country virtually without exception is poorly funded, incomplete and reserved for too few people.

It is time for us to put aside partisan differences. The mouth was always intended to be a part of our Canada health care system. It is only a historical anomaly that it is not. When Prime Minister Diefenbaker asked Justice Hall to recommend what should be in the Canada health care system in 1964, Justice Hall recommended that dental care be included. This is an over 50-year omission that we have the chance to rectify and the New Democrats are not going to stop until all Canadians can get their teeth fixed as a matter of right, just like they can with respect to every other necessary medical issue in this country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I am delighted to enter into this debate. I have been listening all day to members in the House speak to Bill C-31. What are we talking about with Bill C-31? We are talking about making sure that families with incomes of less than $90,000, and with children under 12 who do not have dental coverage or insurance elsewhere, get oral health support. That is what we are talking about in this bill.

We are also talking about making sure that low-income individuals whose incomes are less than $20,000, and low-income couples and families whose incomes are less than $35,000, get a one-time housing benefit of $500. That is what we are talking about in Bill C-31.

When I listened to members in the House today, I went through a range of emotions, from anger to dismay to sadness. I heard the Conservatives say over and over again that children who need dental care support and who do not have dental care support should not get it. The Conservatives are opposed to this bill, and they used all kinds of rationales, illogical and strange as they may be. They even came right out and said that dental health should not be a priority because there is no crisis. This comes from the people who actually have dental coverage for themselves and their families.

Across the country, 500,000 children do not have access to dental care. Just so Conservative members know, here are the real facts of what is going on. Oral health is actually critical to our overall health. This goes beyond the risk of pain, infection and tooth decay. Particularly in young children, it could impact eating, sleep and growth. It could have long-lasting impacts into adulthood. In fact, oral health is linked to diabetes and respiratory illnesses. The most common surgery preformed on preschool children at most pediatric hospitals in Canada is treatment for dental decay.

The Conservatives may not care about people and the pain they may have to suffer through because they do not have access to dental services, but let me say this: They care about money. They talk about money all the time, not that they would ever stop to talk about ultrarich CEOs, who benefit from excessive bonuses and pandemic profitability. The Conservatives are not worried about those companies. They are not worried about the oil and gas industry, which last year alone made $147 billion. We will never hear them say that those companies should pay their share so those 500,000 children and families can actually get dental care. We will never hear that.

All they talk about is how we cannot afford it and about where the money will come from. The money to support people in Canada can come from the very people who have extra and excessive profits. That is what the New Democrats are here to fight for. Members can bet their bottom dollars that this is what I am here to fight for.

Let us talk about money for a minute. I do not know if any Conservative members know this, but 1% of people end up in the hospital because they do not have dental services. They end up in emergency. Just in British Columbia alone, the cost of that 1% is $155 million. That is just for one province. If we multiply that across the entire country, all the provinces and territories, it makes up all the money required to do this work and then some.

Imagine the pain and suffering that people have to go through. The Conservatives talk about dollars and cents, but they do not really think about them. When they speak, they say that dental care is not a crisis. My goodness. Really? Do we really want everybody to end up in the hospital, and then we can say let us do something about it?

The worst thing is they try to pit communities against communities. I heard them saying all day today that somehow, because there are insufficient funds to address mental health, we should not address dental health. What sort of twisted, illogical thinking is that? The New Democrats on this side of the House absolutely believe that there should be investments in mental health. In fact, we believe that head-to-toe care should be in place. We want to fight for pharmacare as well. We will go to the wall to fight for these things.

I cannot believe what I am hearing today from the Conservatives, including from their own leader, who has said in different places that dental care is not a priority. I have even heard Conservative members say that no constituents in their ridings need dental care. My goodness. I challenge them to validate that by way of proof that not one of their constituents needs dental care.

I want to turn for a minute to the housing issue, as I am also hearing twisted logic on housing.

Let us be clear. Earlier today I put on the record the distribution of how many people qualified for the housing benefit, province by province. It was to the tune of 1,785,600 people. They would qualify for this $500 one-time benefit. In Quebec, 568,800 would qualify for this benefit. It is the second-highest province by number of people who would qualify, so it is simply not true to say that Quebeckers would not get this benefit. They would.

I have to say that I admire Quebec from this perspective. When the federal Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993, Quebec and British Columbia were the only two provinces that continued social housing and continued to build affordable housing and co-op housing, doing so by themselves. British Columbia did that. We also subsidize people who have that need. Now with an NDP government back in office there, it is investing significant amounts of money into housing.

Just because some people have safe, secure, affordable housing and rent that is geared to income does not mean we should leave everyone else behind. It does not mean we do not need to fight for them to get supports as well. I will go to my grave fighting for people to get that. As my mother has taught me, we need to lift each other up. As indigenous elders have taught me, we need one heart, one mind. That is what we have to do. People have been left behind, and just because I have made it does not mean we have made it. It means we have to work harder to bring everybody forward.

Once upon a time I lived in poverty. Once upon a time my parents made less than minimum wage to support us. Just because we are no longer living in poverty does not mean that I forget my history and background and all the people who were left behind. That is what this bill is all about. That is why the New Democrats are here, 24 of us, to force the government to take more action to support the people in this country.

We all deserve it. We want to be proud of who we are as Canadians. I ran for office to do a job, and that job is to fight for everyone so they are not left behind. Until that is done, the New Democrats will never rest. No matter what the Conservatives want to call us, or anyone else, it does not matter. At the end of the day, it is not about me; it is about the people. That is why we are here in this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague and friend from Mirabel on his poignant speech.

As he made clear, we are unhappy with the cavalier way the government is managing Bill C‑31.

Bill C‑31 was poorly drafted. It does not take into account the reality of Quebec in any way whatsoever. It does not line up with what is happening in Quebec, either with respect to the rental support or the dental care support.

Because Quebec has chosen to pay for its own social measures, it is now being largely excluded from and penalized by this bill. There are many ways to fix that, such as a compensation, or even slight changes to the eligibility rules, but nothing was done. It is the type of problem that could have been fixed through the normal process for studying bills, both in the House and in committee, with a minimum of goodwill. However, the government chose the path of super closure to short-circuit the entire normal process.

The hours of debate were reduced and committee studies were minimal, just two hours, which left no time for witnesses to be heard or for the analysis of experts. That was also the case for the people affected by Bill C-31. Our amendments to accommodate Quebec were rejected because the government preferred to use its bulldozer and not listen to reason or the people affected. The government acted in bad faith by refusing to give the House and its committee the opportunity to reasonably carry out their role. This was all aided and abetted by the third opposition party, all for the purpose of moving hastily and ramming through the bill.

This has given us a bad bill that has come back to us at third reading looking just as bad. The result is that, once again, Quebec is being dismissed by this government and by the House.

Let me be very clear. I am totally in favour of the principles of this bill. The Bloc Québécois is all in favour of the principles of this bill, but we are going to vote against it. The reason is that the application of this bill will create great inequities for Quebec and, by short-circuiting the entire process for studying and improving this bill, the government is making the choice to implement a law that is unfair to Quebec. If the government had let the House do its work, we would not be in this position.

Let me explain. The bill discriminates against Quebeckers in both its housing and dental care components. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed our concerns. The people of Quebec will not get their fair share with Bill C-31.

Let us start by looking at the housing component. On October 14, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published his estimates of how much the rental assistance component of Bill C-31 would cost and how many people it would benefit. This part of the bill provides for a one-time cheque for $500. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the people of Quebec would not get their fair share and would be discriminated against.

One eligibility requirement is having a modest income, so $20,000 for a single person or $35,000 for a couple or family. Another requirement is being a renter and putting more than 30% of one's income towards rent. In Quebec, we have collectively chosen to support social housing.

Many low-income households live in low-rent housing or in housing co‑operatives. In these social housing units, the rent is capped at 30% of income, in order to take into account the renters' ability to pay.

These people are therefore excluded from the help being proposed here. Quebec has chosen to be more progressive and collectively pay for a social housing service. With this bill, Quebeckers find themselves paying a second time for a benefit cheque, yet they are largely excluded. There is not a penny in compensation. The result is that this bill discriminates against Quebec because Quebec is too progressive for Ottawa, for this Liberal government and for the NDP, which never stops talking.

I want to be clear. There is still a serious lack of social housing in Quebec. More must be done, and Ottawa must contribute to social housing.

Because the situation is better in Quebec, low-income Quebeckers are being penalized. Because Quebec is too progressive, Ottawa has chosen to deprive Quebec of its rightful portion of the rental assistance. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that because of this 30% rule, as my colleague was saying, 118,000 people in Canada will not be entitled to support, and three-quarters of them live in Quebec. We are talking about 86,700 people.

Why did the government choose to create such an injustice? Why is it refusing to correct it?

Why is it that every time an injustice is inflicted on Quebec, Ottawa chooses to ignore it? Once again, this inequity could have been fixed in committee or in the House. This government refuses to do so, and is deliberately choosing to withhold a significant portion of the assistance to which Quebec is entitled. Is the government ready to commit to correcting this injustice? Thus far, it has refused.

The same goes for the dental component. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also confirmed our fears. Quebec will receive half as much assistance per child on average. According to the PBO's calculations, Quebeckers will receive 13% of the program. If we received our share, it would be 23%. That is a 10% difference. In short, Quebec parents are far from receiving their fair share of the program. The scenario per child is not much better. On average, a child in Quebec will receive half as much as a Canadian child living outside Quebec, as I stated earlier. Furthermore, that is without compensation and without any real assurance that the support will adequately cover dental care costs.

See, these are lump-sum cheques, so parents in Quebec will not get smaller cheques. Instead, half of them will not be eligible for this benefit at all even though parents with similar incomes and in similar situations outside Quebec will be. As my colleague explained, that means approximately 130,000 people in Quebec will be excluded from the program even though, all things being equal, they would be included if they lived outside Quebec.

When we met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer last Friday, he pointed out that there were two reasons for this. The first is that Quebec is too progressive. Because of the Government of Quebec's program, many parents pay nothing when they go to the dentist. That means they cannot get money from Ottawa.

Quebeckers chose to provide dental care for children, and we chose to pay for it. Because we pay for this important service, we will get no help from Ottawa, even though we pay for that too. There is no coordination and no compensation.

The second reason for the disparity is that Quebec is overly unionized. Since our unionization rate is higher than Canada's, a higher proportion of our population has group insurance. This excludes us once again from this bill. Quebec is not getting its fair share because we are more progressive and more unionized.

In Ottawa, the Liberal government and the NDP are choosing to discriminate against progressives and union members. I am not making this up. Because it is too progressive, Quebec is being discriminated against by Ottawa. The government refused to propose an alternative arrangement. The government forced the House to pass this all very quickly, without addressing the inequities. This is unacceptable, which is why we have to vote against the bill, even though we support the principle.

Without a doubt, my nation is being ill served by its neighbour, who makes decisions for us about our own money, and who no longer even tries to offer arrangements or accommodations. I hope everyone remembers this.

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

Madam Speaker, there are 338 members in the House. We were elected by people who went to the polls and asked us to work for them in a constructive manner to develop better public policies, better transfer programs, to improve their quality of life and the quality of services. I am utterly convinced that despite our different views on a number of things, the 338 people seated here today are here for the right reasons. That is why we need to work together.

When we develop public policies like the ones in Bill C‑31, we have to work hard in a non-partisan way to deliver better programs, especially with an ambitious bill like this. This forces us to collaborate, reflect, draft several versions of the bill, amend it, consult people, experts, the communities and respect the voice of those who elected us. That too is part of our job.

That is the part of our job we were prevented from doing with the botched process surrounding Bill C‑31, which was disrespectful of parliamentarians. This bill was concocted at the last minute in the middle of the summer because the leader of the NDP went on the news and said that their agreement might be off. Now we find ourselves stuck with Bill C‑31. Truly, this bill seems like it was drafted on a napkin. When something is cobbled together at the last minute, the parliamentary process becomes even more important. The role of members of Parliament and the opposition parties, the experience and the expertise on both sides of the House become even more crucial in improving this bill, which is obviously more likely to be flawed than bills that have been introduced once, twice or three times in the House and that have already been examined in parliament.

How can we contribute to this work? Through hours of debate in the House and the work we do in committee. That takes time, planning and preparation. We can speed things up a little, but it takes energy, time and witnesses from society at large. We cannot do our work in a vacuum. We cannot do that. The people who elect us deserve better. We need numbers, like the ones we get from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It takes time to introduce amendments, to consider those amendments, to study and debate them. Sometimes, amendments enable us to ensure nobody is excluded by these policies. That is definitely true of Bill C‑31.

Then we come back to the House at report stage and third reading. The hours we spend debating bills to improve them are important. Anyone who truly believes in the parliamentary system and in our institutions sees the value in that.

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North over there. He knows this better than most because he spends 23 hours a day debating in the House.

After doing that work, then at least we can be confident that the work was done. Obviously we are not all going to vote the same way. Most of the time, we are not going to agree, but we will all have the sense that we did what we were supposed to and that we are voting on work that is as complete as it should be.

In this case, we did not skip one step, we did not skip two steps, we did not skip three steps. We skipped every step of the legislative process. Parliamentarians were fully prevented from doing their job. We were subjugated by the executive branch of government. In effect, parliamentarians were muzzled, both in committee and here in the House. It felt like we were being told that we had nothing to say, that we were not being constructive, when the government imposed not just closure, but super closure.

After muzzling the House, the government told us we had nothing more to say. Apparently we did have things to say, things that could have improved this bill. Members on this side of the House are just as competent as members across the way. We were told that the committee would sit on a Monday evening from 7 p.m. until midnight. If the work was not done at midnight, if there was a fire alarm or some such interruption, the amendments would no longer be negotiated and would no longer be discussed. Our work would go in the garbage, and the bill would be adopted as-is at report stage.

We were prevented from hearing from some witnesses. Oddly enough, we had originally agreed to have four hours of testimony. We had an in camera meeting two days later, and the witnesses were gone. We had only an hour and a half with two ministers at the same time. I must say, the ministers were ill prepared and visibly uncomfortable with the bill. The Minister of Health is an excellent economist of international renown. I could see in his eyes how uncomfortable he was with certain parts of the bill. It was palpable.

Thus, it was decided that witnesses would no longer appear and, in the end, we wound up with a bill that was not amended by the committee. What is worse, we were prevented from presenting amendments after the ministers appeared, even though we had already been prevented from hearing from witnesses. The whole amendment process was therefore short-circuited. We know that sometimes amendments are not adopted. We know that the government and the NDP, which joined forces—that is not an accusation; it is a fact—might not have adopted the amendments, but those amendments still deserved to be discussed.

This bill is therefore going to be rammed through today without any parliamentary scrutiny. As a relatively new parliamentarian, I am very disappointed by that. This is not just a closure motion. It is a super closure motion.

I see members of the Standing Committee on Health here in the House. We are in the habit of working together, talking to each other and understanding each other. We do not agree on everything, but we are able to compromise. We know that we are capable of doing that. However, the government prevented us from doing so. I felt the discomfort on both sides of the House. I felt it from the Bloc Québécois and from the Conservatives. I also felt it from government members on Monday evening in committee because they were not being allowed to do their job.

Who pays for that? We know that voter turnout is dropping. People are becoming increasingly cynical about politics. People are less and less interested in it, and now we are showing those people that this is what the democratic process is like, that MPs serve no purpose, that there is no regard for their work. Then we wonder why the public has lost confidence in our institutions.

Who will pay because people were left out of Bill C‑31? It will be the progressive parents and children in Quebec who decided to pay for certain services for those 10 and under, services that are also paid for by the federal program but that we will not be compensated for. Progressive parents in Quebec are therefore being penalized, and future generations are being jeopardized.

The Liberals and the NDP say that dental care is health care, and rightly so. It is part of overall health, but we are talking about the future of universal public health care. Essentially, the provinces are being told that if they develop these services and eventually integrate them into their health care system, the federal government will penalize them.

Who will pay for that? It will be the 86,000 people who do not qualify for the housing benefit because they live in low-rent housing or co-operatives, which are progressive housing construction models adopted by Quebec. With a small, two-line amendment, we could have included these people in the federal program, but the government refused. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert and I wrote again to the two ministers concerned, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion and the Minister of Health. Since they love the Queen and the King, we implored them to use their royal prerogative to include those people. We received an acknowledgement of receipt, but that is about all.

Despite all the good intentions, how can we encourage strategic assistance for housing with a bill based on such a principle? How can we encourage the provinces to create permanent programs for housing construction when the federal government establishes programs that will penalize them for it later?

The government is basically saying that since some provinces have made an effort, it will take Canadian taxpayers' money and send it to the provinces that have not made that effort. That is the issue. Clearly, this is a flawed and unacceptable process.

The Bloc Québécois would have liked to do more to improve this bill, but as it stands, we will not be able to support it at second and third reading.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. Bill C-31 sets out a dental care program. That is part of health care, which, according to the Constitution, falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

The government chose to interfere in that jurisdiction rather than doing its job in its own jurisdictions. Meanwhile, in Quebec, we have a dental care program for kids that is almost the same as the one proposed here. However, the government fails to take Quebec's program into account in its bill. It is ramming its bill through by imposing gag orders. There is no harmonization with provincial jurisdictions. This centralizing government has no regard for jurisdiction and what exists elsewhere.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. I did not hear, in his speech, any mention of dental care.

I imagine this is because he does not, in fact, support the idea of expanding universal health care to include care for people's teeth. I appreciate an honest disagreement as much as the next guy.

My question is around consistency. Through much of his remarks, he talked about his view that the government should not be providing directed financial relief to the people hardest hit by this crisis, because, in his view, it is inflationary.

Why, then, did he vote for Bill C-30, given that the measures in Bill C-30 are very similar to the relief measures in Bill C-31? The money all comes from the same place. I think people appreciate consistency more than anything. Perhaps he could explain.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill is a very costly bill, but we must realize that the money we are talking about is going into the pockets of Canadians. That is why it is a costly bill.

For the most part, the reason the committee was somewhat limited is that the Conservative Party did not want to give any indication in terms of passing the bill out of committee well before it was ultimately passed. If the Conservatives wanted to have more time for it in committee, then why did they not negotiate or at least allow Bill C-31 to pass second reading at an earlier time so there would have been more time for it to be debated in committee? They cannot have it both ways.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent example where I could amplify what the member has so rightfully put on the record.

In the last federal election, it was a minority government. That means that for the Liberal Party to be able to get things through, such as Bill C-31, we need to have a partner. We need to have another opposition party to support us. As opposed to being strictly nothing but opposition and oppose everything, the NDP has identified goals on which it can work with the government and ultimately see things get through. Let there be no doubt that if it were not for the government, the Liberal Party, and the NDP, we would not be able to get Bill C-31 through.

That is delivering for Canadians. It is respecting what Canadians wanted in the last federal election, which is for parties to start working together to do things for Canadians. That is exactly what this bill would do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, here we are on the third and final reading of Bill C-31. We just went through a voting process, and I suspect that most Canadians would likely be somewhat disappointed in the Conservatives and the Bloc for voting against Bill C-31 at report stage concurrence motion. It is concerning given the very context in which we are having this debate.

The members opposite talk about the issue of inflation and how we can help Canadians. This is legislation that will put money in the pockets of Canadians in all regions of our country in a very real and tangible way.

I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate for a number of hours, whether during second reading or earlier today at report stage. I can tell members that I believe that the arguments being presented by the Bloc and Conservative parties would disappoint a majority of Canadians. I think that both the opposition parties are not reflecting what the majority of Canadians want to see, especially if we factor in the issue of inflation.

For the last number of days, the Conservatives have talked about inflation, saying it is so bad in Canada that we need to do something. When it comes to actually taking action, they do not support the government in doing that. I hope to address two or three points in my speech.

The first is with respect to a realization of what is happening around the world. I made reference to this earlier. Inflation is taking place around the world. Canada, as the government House leader just mentioned, is really not doing that bad with respect to our inflation rate compared to countries such as the United States, England and many in the European Union. That does not mean we should not be taking action to support Canadians.

Bill C-31 is one of those pieces of legislation with budgetary actions that are there to support Canadians in every region of our country. However, we find that, as much as the Conservatives like to talk about dealing with inflation, when it comes to standing up for Canadians by voting in favour of measures that would assist them, they vote against them. Although, in fairness, that is not completely true.

After all, we did have the doubling of the GST tax credit, which I referenced earlier today, that is putting money in the pockets of 11 million Canadians. Imagine that. There are 11 million Canadians who are getting a doubling of the GST rebate. The initial response from the Conservatives in particular was to vote against that legislation. In time, they saw the light. They saw that it was putting money in the pockets of Canadians and they reversed their position. Good for them. However, we are not seeing that with respect to Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 establishes two measures. One will put more money in the pockets of people and the other will provide a child dental care program that will prevent children from having to go to the hospital.

Let me expand on both of those points. If we take a look at the issue of child dental work, in virtually every province, we will find children going to hospitals because they were not able to get necessary dental work. We know that for a fact, that our hospitals are used as a last resort because of the lack of dental work being done on children.

When we stop to think about it, we have legislation that would be telling moms, dads, grandparents, guardians and others that, if there is a child under the age of 12, no matter where that child lives in Canada, and I will concede that some provinces do have better dental services than others, but we are not discriminating, based on income level their guardian, they will be provided with financial assistance in getting that dental work done.

It is ultimately a positive step forward toward a true national dental care program. I believe that, if we were to canvass, most of our constituents would see that as a positive thing. Why is there opposition to it? Not only does it provide a high-quality program of benefits, but it also enables those individuals to get that money to do that dental work, especially at a time when people are concerned about buying their groceries, so they do not have to necessarily make the decision of whether one's seven-year-old child will have extra groceries or if they should be getting that dental work done.

There are many households that are having to experience making that decision. The Conservatives, and the Bloc, apparently, based on the last vote, say that it is not their problem. It is not the problem of the opposition party. They say that we do not need to provide this type of service.

I would argue that the legislation before us goes a long way in ensuring that good decisions are, in fact, being made on behalf of the children in Canada, that every child, no matter what region they live in and no matter what province or territory that they live in, if they meet the criteria, will be, in fact, able to be assisted in getting that dental work.

The Bloc even goes further. If it were up to the Bloc, there would be no assistance whatsoever, because often the Bloc looks at Ottawa as nothing more than an ATM. It does not realize that, whether we are looking to Quebec, Manitoba or either one of our three coasts, we will find that the people of Canada understand and value the national government playing a role in health care. In fact, we have legislation called the Canada Health Act to ensure that we continue to play that critical role.

During the pandemic, when we had serious issues with long-term care, or when we have had issues dealing with mental health, no one should be surprised when the Government of Canada steps up and provides support, both directly and indirectly.

The bottom line is that, from the separatist point of view, the separatists do not want to have these national programs. I totally disagree with that. I respect where they are coming from, even though I absolutely, totally disagree.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to not want to recognize what Canadians have recognized for years, which is that the national government does have a role to play in health care. When we look at the issue of dental health care, that also matters. It is not crossing provincial jurisdiction.

The best way we are going to be able to move forward with a true national program is when we can get all the different stakeholders onside. In the interim, we are establishing a national benefits program. This year it will deal with children, and next year it will deal with seniors and people with disabilities. I would think that the Conservative Party would understand that.

We have been there recognizing the importance of health care because we know how important health care is to Canadians. That is why we have the health care accords with all the provinces. That is why we have historical amounts of money going to the provinces in the form of health transfers, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars put toward mental health.

Whether it is on a motion from the member for Avalon on long-term health care or other needs, Liberal members of Parliament reflect the interests of their constituents when they come to Ottawa. That is what we see. We do not see that coming from the Conservatives, and that is quite unfortunate. That is one of the things the Conservative Party and the Bloc are voting against.

The other thing they are voting against is the issue of rental support. We will have 1.8 million people who would be able to take advantage of having money in their pockets through this particular aspect of the legislation. Individuals who are having a difficult time will be able to make rental payments.

I would argue that we are talking about hundreds into thousands of constituents, depending on the riding. Let there be no doubt that, every riding in this country will access that particular program. That is in the neighbourhood of up to $500. When the Conservative Party talks about inflation and asks what we are doing regarding inflation and how are we helping Canadians, this is helping Canadians in a very real and direct way.

Here is the difference: The Conservatives like to talk about inflation, put a Conservative spin on inflation to try to give the impression that Canada stands alone, or that maybe we are the ones who dictate to the world there will be inflation. They have all sorts of misinformation.

The Conservatives say the government should do things, but when we are doing these things, when we recognize where the inflation is around the world and that Canada is doing well, as I indicated at the beginning, it is not good enough.

If we talk to Liberal members of Parliament, at the very least, and other members, we find that our constituents are having a difficult time when they go to the grocery store. They want to buy some groceries, and they see the price increases taking place. We understand that when someone is celebrating a birthday, people want to go to a store to buy them a birthday gift, but the costs are going up.

People need to understand and appreciate the fact that holiday seasons are coming up. Many of the measures we are taking are happening in the short term to help Canadians where we can to provide more money in their pockets.

In Question Period today the Conservatives were mocking the CERB program. The program cost billions of dollars, but it was there to support Canadians at a time when the government needed to be there. When economies were shutting down in certain areas and people were not able to go to work, the Government of Canada had their backs. We provided biweekly cheques. It was a significant investment because we wanted to be there for Canadians and we were in a very tangible way.

Today the Conservatives criticize the billions that we spent in regard to getting Canadians through the pandemic. At the time when Canadians were looking for support, we were there and we continue to be there. The Conservatives were balking and now they are criticizing us for having borrowed money back then. They are saying that we have inflation because we borrowed that money. The Conservatives need to wake up to the reality. It is either they are supporting the people of Canada or they are not.

It seems to me that the Conservatives supported the many measures at the time of the pandemic when we were borrowing the money. However, today, they are criticizing us for borrowing the money. They are also saying that the inflation rate we have today is because we borrowed the money to support Canadians. I would point out that our inflation rate is lower than the inflation rates in the United States, England and many of the countries in the European Union.

The Conservatives are not consistent with their policy advice. We all remember that the current leader of the Conservative Party, less than a year ago, told people that the way to fight inflation, in part, was to invest in cryptocurrency. He advised Canadians to use their hard-earned money to invest in cryptocurrency. Those who followed that advice would have lost substantially, 30%-plus.

The Conservatives talk about triple, triple, triple. I think they got the idea from Tim Hortons' double double. Triple, triple, triple; how misleading is that? Eighty per cent of the constituents in Winnipeg North receive more money from the price on pollution than they actually pay into it. That is according to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is not the Liberal Party saying that. It is actually increasing. They try to give the false impression on that issue, and it is not the first time.

The Conservatives are trying to develop those bumper stickers that they believe they can sell to Canadians, whether it is factual or not. More often than not, it is not factual.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives voted against Bill C-31. They have one last chance, which will happen sometime in the next six or seven hours. I hope that they will reconsider the manner in which they are voting on this bill, support their constituents and vote in favour of this legislation.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, be read the third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 18, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-31 at the third reading stage.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is always a chance. I hear the member opposite saying there is a chance. Although we have many and great differences, there is always hope for us, and I look forward to that hope.

I am very pleased to say that this afternoon, we are going to complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care and rental housing. Tomorrow, we will finish second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act. On Monday, we will continue to the fifth day of the second reading debate for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Tuesday, as members will be happy to note, is an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act (COVID-19 response and other measures). On Thursday, we will call Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. For next Friday, our plan is to start second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

I would also like to inform the House that next Wednesday during Routine Proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be pleased to deliver a statement for Remembrance Day.