Bill C-31 (Historical)

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 .

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C-31

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

For my constituents back home in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, I am rising on Government Business No. 20, which was tabled on October 17, to resume consideration of the motion by the government House leader, seconded by the Minister of Health, on Bill C-31.

This is a programming motion that effectively curtails the normal Standing Orders, which guide the democratic process by which bills are debated, reviewed and voted upon in Parliament and effectively streamlines that process to the objectives of the government. That is problematic. It is problematic for one very important reason, and that is a reason that was outlined in the Liberal platform of the 2015 election.

Government Business No. 20 is a programming motion that not only cuts off debate on a bill that is going to cost approximately $10 billion, but it dictates to parliamentary committees what they can and cannot do. In the 2015 election platform of the Liberal Party of Canada, it stated very clearly that committees would be the masters of their own parliamentary work. Indeed, this is a democratic principle that is upheld through both convention and some of our existing Standing Orders.

The motion before us today effectively wipes away the democratic processes outlined in the rules that govern the operationalization of democracy in Canada, so that the government can push forward a piece of legislation to expedite its own political objectives.

Before I go into the programming motion and what it effectively does, I will say that for the last two weeks we have been more or less debating this bill. The bill was tabled on September 20, and we debated it on September 23, September 26, October 3, October 5, October 7 and now today for a total of 11.5 hours. For all the rhetoric about the Conservatives stalling everything, it has been 11.5 hours for a bill that is going to cost $10 billion.

Effectively, for every hour of debate, we are talking about $900 million and change in taxpayer money. Think of all the small businesses in Canada that are struggling right now and that pay taxes for us to debate and distribute funds accordingly. Ten billion dollars is a lot of money, and we are here in this House to debate it. Our primary constitutional responsibility is to review and approve parliamentary expenditures, and to debate and review legislation. The motion before us today effectively cuts that off.

Since the debate started, the Liberals have been saying that Conservatives do not care about young children, that we do not care at all because we are opposed to this motion. I will just remind them of the second promise made in 2015 that the Liberals do not seem to care about, which was to eliminate water advisories on first nation reserves. That has not been accomplished in seven years, so the rhetoric coming from the government about Conservatives not caring is simply untrue. All Canadians care about children getting the proper health and sanitary measures that should exist in every community in this country but that effectively do not. I am just going to put that on the table.

Now, let us look at Government Business No. 20 a little more closely. Paragraph (c) reads:

...if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, during its consideration of the bill,

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings....

Paragraph (c), subparagraph (i), essentially states that the government is taking over the administration of committees with this motion and saying that all other committee business is secondary to this bill right now. There might be a valid argument for that, but there is a lot of other important work taking place in Parliament that is now subject to this motion. The first thing this motion does is curtail not only the independence of the health committee, where this legislation will be referred, but the entire administration of parliamentary democracy in Canada.

Subparagraph (ii) reads:

...amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2022, and distributed to the committee members in both official languages by noon on Friday, October 21....

Therefore, now that we have voted, after our debate ends this evening on the motion before us and later on the legislation by 11:45 p.m., the government is now dictating to members when they can or cannot submit an amendment to be reviewed in committee by a specific date. Again, that is contrary to the principle that the Liberal Party ran on in the 2015 election that committees are the masters of their own parliamentary work.

What this would do is effectively diminish the power of committees and say that the Government of Canada is going to take over what committees are doing and that it is going to control how democracy operates. I do not agree with that practice. In paragraph (c), the motion states:

(iv) the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no earlier than 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 24...and if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. that day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, and the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill....

Paragraph (c), subparagraph (iv), indicates again that the government is controlling the democratic process. It is setting specific timelines for parliamentarians, irrespective of party, on what they can and cannot do at the Standing Committee on Health. That is not a principle that any member of Parliament should be happy with.

Subparagraph (v) in the motion is so specific that it even states which members of the committee could table the bill back in the House of Commons. Not only are we told by the government when we can table amendments to be reviewed in a very short period of time of less than a week, but the motion is stating that any member of the committee could effectively put something forward.

I could go on, but this is a very prescriptive programming motion. Again, they are the principles the Liberal Party ran on in 2015, principles that I know the member from Kingston who spoke right before me seemed very concerned about when he was on the environment committee. The member for North Vancouver sat beside him, not as a member of the standing committee but as an observer, and he understands that what his government is doing is contrary to the principles that he ran on in the 2015 election and, frankly, contrary to the Standing Orders and the operationalization of democracy in Canada.

During our 11 and a half hours of debate, there were a couple of key points raised. One is how this bill relates to the inflation crisis that we are facing here in Canada. Just today, Tyler Meredith, former financial adviser to the Prime Minister, outlined in an article in Bloomberg, that the people impacted most by inflation are the ones who could benefit from the money in this bill. In other words, low-income Canadians, those who make under $35,000 a year who might qualify for the rent subsidy and those who might qualify for the dental subsidy, are the ones who are being impacted by inflation. We know, on this side of the House of Commons, that one of the primary reasons we are in an inflationary environment today is government spending. Looking carefully at how public dollars are being spent in this country, that needs to be considered.

The second point is a question about governance. Over the last three years, when some programs that I even voted for were operationalized by the government, they were not done very well. We have no assurances from Bill C-31 that there would be transparency and that there would be effective checks to ensure that money being disbursed to Canadians would be used wisely. I know $650 for dental care means a lot to people, but at a minimum I believe that receipts or a bill should have to be submitted before the money is received to outline a minimum threshold to ensure transparency.

I could go on, but I look forward to any questions in the House this evening.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for his very passionate speech on Bill C-31.

Can he outline what kind of impact getting dental care will have on his community and the children in Kingston?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this very important motion that would put into process how we will ultimately resolve the bill before us, Bill C-31, a bill to enact very important supports for Canadians, in particular Canadians who are struggling the most right now and Canadians who are experiencing the effects of global inflation and everything that is going on in the world at this moment.

Specifically, this programming motion would set in motion a series of events. The first thing that would happen is we would finish disposing of this piece of legislation today at second reading. We would then send it off to committee. Once it gets to committee, it would have a certain amount of time to go through clause-by-clause and other considerations the committee might have. Then it would return to this House later next week to be finally voted on.

I think this motion to program Bill C-31 is very important. It is very important because so many Canadians out there who are experiencing the hardships associated with rising costs right now would benefit from the supports in the bill. I know there have been many complaints, from the Conservatives in particular, about the democratic process and how this is an affront to democracy, but in all fairness, if we look back at what happened this morning, we can see that the Conservatives were utilizing the opportunity to bring forward a concurrence motion to essentially shut down government debate.

Quite often this question will be asked: Why can the government not seem to program properly to put bills forward or schedule its agenda? What we hear repeatedly is that the government is completely incapable of doing that. Well, the reality is, as Parliament is set up this way, that the opposition has certain tools and tactics it can use to slow things down. In reality, this is, really, the tool opposition MPs have. The tool an opposition has in Parliament, whether it is this Parliament or a provincial legislature, is to slow things down and get things to move as slowly as possible to try to perhaps drum up more support for its position or whatever it might be.

I understand that. I understand why the opposition is doing what it is doing from time to time. I understand where its desire comes from to slow things down and effectively stop legislation from moving forward. However, I also have great concern over doing that on this particular bill. This is a bill that would genuinely help the most vulnerable people in our communities.

When games are played by opposition parties to slow certain bills down that might not have the immediate consequential impacts that this one does, I can at least understand why they are doing it, even though it frustrates me at those times as well. In this particular case, it cannot be accepted. We have our positions on this. It is quite clear that different parties feel different ways about it. My understanding is that the Conservatives are still not in favour of Bill C-31. They did seem to jump on board with the GST rebate bill the government tabled a few weeks ago, but with this particular one they are not doing so.

It has become very clear to the House where the direction is. I can pretty much predict what the vote will be when we vote on this bill, whether we vote on it next week or eight weeks from now. The only people, individuals or stakeholders who would be affected by further delays are those who would benefit from these very important supports. That is why, in working with the NDP, we are programming this particular bill, Bill C-31. It is so we can see it through the rest of the legislative process, bring it into law and get supports to Canadians.

As I indicated earlier, many individuals in our communities are facing a rising cost of living. Everybody is facing it, but it is certainly affecting certain people quite a bit more than others in terms of their ability to support themselves. That is what this government has been focused on. It is focusing on providing supports and making sure that the individuals in our communities who are suffering the most can actually get benefits.

This is what we saw during the COVID pandemic. Unfortunately, one of the realities of the pandemic is that the disparity between the haves and the have-nots has grown even more. We need to focus on bringing forward supports that can try to address this.

When individuals are properly maintaining their health because they have access to the various different social supports that are out there, we will see more prosperous individuals who will contribute more effectively to our economy, which is a good thing, quite frankly, for everybody. That is why I am very pleased to see this particular piece of legislation move forward through this programming motion and be brought into law.

The part I want to focus on is dental care. One out of three Canadians cannot afford dental care. The bill goes toward helping those Canadians specifically. What the bill proposes is that families that make $90,000 and less will be able to access supports for dental care for children under the age of 12.

I heard a comment from my Conservative colleagues in particular during the half hour of questions and answers with the minister that these supports already exist in provinces. I can speak to Ontario, as an example, it being my home province. It is correct that some supports do exist, but the bulk of those supports are primarily geared toward assisting individuals once they are experiencing an emergency. If I heard the minister correctly earlier, he said the majority, or a certain percentage, I believe it was around 30% or 40%, of children who were accessing emergency dental care were being given anaesthesia. They were in a state of having to have emergency surgery.

That is not what this is about. This is not about just providing for individuals once they get to the point of having a medical emergency. It is about helping with preventative dental care and getting the support to young children who need it in advance so they do not get to that place of having to show up at an emergency department to get emergency dental care.

That is the first thing I would say about the argument regarding the provinces that are already providing these supports. The other thing I would say is that it is not holistic. It is not complete. It is not a standardized program throughout our entire country. When we can provide a standard quality of care throughout the entire country, and in this case as it relates to children under the age of 12 who qualify, everybody will be taken care of to the same minimum level of care.

It is one thing for an Ontario MP to stand up and say that these already exist in Ontario, even if it is only to a certain degree, and there is some truth to that, but it is not entirely true. It is one thing for MPs to stand up and say that, but it does not mean it is consistent across the entire country. This is a legislature that looks at the entire country, not just one province or another province. In my opinion, it is very important that we establish this minimum standard of benchmark, especially when we know that one-third of Canadians cannot afford dental care. My plea to colleagues across the way is that in the interest of establishing this standardized care, we need to move forward with a dental plan.

The other question we heard from the Conservatives, and this was asked of the minister as well, was how many provinces asked for this. A couple of my Conservative friends repeatedly asked how many as the minister was trying to answer the question. I did not realize that we had to wait for provinces to ask us for something before we could propose an idea. The job of this legislature is not to just sit here and wait for provinces to ask for things and then respond. Our job here is to represent all Canadians, so if we could come up with a good idea and a good concept for all Canadians, we should do that.

What the Conservatives are really trying to get at when they say that is that we are only doing this for political reasons because the NDP wanted it in a supply and confidence agreement. Fair enough, I will say to my Conservative colleagues. There is truth in the fact that when we are in a partnership and looking to work with other people, we have to make concessions. We compromise and we work together.

I will be equally critical of my friends in the NDP. To stand there and say that they forced the government to do this is a bit of an overreach, and to suggest that somehow the government was forced into doing this is not true. What we see here is an opportunity to work together with another political party to advance goals that are in the best interests of Canadians.

A lot of great legislation was adopted in this House during minority Parliaments, which is when different parties have to work together. The creation of our flag, the flag that is right next to the Speaker's chair, was created during a minority Parliament. The NDP never misses an opportunity to remind us that the great legacy of Tommy Douglas is health care, which is another thing that happened during a minority Parliament. I believe OAS was also created during a minority Parliament.

That is the whole point. I find it very rich when the criticism is “How dare you let another party tell you what to do?” This is the whole point of our coming together in this place, to work together. It is to realize that one of the most important objectives of the NDP in this Parliament was to do something for young children in terms of dental care. We recognized that and we had equally important pieces of policy that we wanted to put forward. We recognized that because this is a minority Parliament, we have to work together. We have to collaborate. We have to sit down and ask how we advance objectives. That is a responsible legislative process unfolding.

I must admit I am perplexed when I hear criticisms, in particular the bulk of it coming from the Conservatives, about two political parties working together in this legislature. That is indeed exactly what we are supposed to do, if not always, most importantly during the time when there is a minority government.

I will conclude by saying that this programming motion that we are debating right now regarding Bill C-31 is incredibly important. I think it is time to put the political games aside for a second and recognize that whether members support the legislation or not, whether members think this would drive inflation or not, regardless of any individual thought on it, members must recognize and must agree that there will be some people out there who would benefit from this.

If members know that the writing is on the wall and that it is inevitable, and they know where this is going and know what the outcome will be, let us have our say in here. Let us say our piece. Let us get up and debate it. Let us put forward our ideas, our concepts and our positions on it, but then let us let it come to a vote.

Let us not use this bill as an opportunity to use that one tool I spoke of earlier that the opposition has, which is to slow down and stall legislation. Let us at least let this very important piece of legislation move through the process so that those who really need it, whether or not members agree that this is the best way to deliver it to them, let us just make sure that they can get these supports so that they can be taken care of, especially right now in the time of need of so many individuals in our country.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the underlying premise of Bill C-31 is an assumption that the government is even capable of delivering a $10-billion program, yet its record in government is appalling when we think of the mess it made of passports, when we think of the mess it made of ArriveCAN, when we think of the mess it made with the Canada Infrastructure Bank and even with the delivery of the CERB program.

What makes the minister think that he and his government can actually deliver a $10-billion national dental care program in a coherent and accountable way?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

This is another slap in the face of parliamentarism, Mr. Speaker. It is a two-handed slap, one hand being Liberal and the other New Democrat. Again, it seems as though we are in a bad movie.

Bill C‑31 is ill-conceived. We should have worked on this bill because it was scribbled on the back of a napkin. Then, we can see there is a desire to expedite debate. There is talk of dental insurance, but there is no clear indication in the bill that it was dental insurance, quite the contrary. What we are seeing now is a government that drafted bad legislation because it was in a too big a hurry to consummate its marriage to the NDP to really put any work into it.

My question is simple. Is the minister embarrassed to introduce this closure motion?

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague raises very good points on both accounts. There is a fear factor within the Conservative Party. They tend to want to shy away from anything related to the environment.

In regards to the legislative agenda, when we stop and think about it, the member is right on. With respect to Bill S-5, the Senate has put in a great deal of effort and working with the government, we now have a substantial piece of legislation that we could and should be debating. One of the reasons why the government was not in a position is because we had to deal with legislation, such as Bill C-31, Bill C-30, Bill C-22, all of which are there to put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians.

Over 11 million Canadians benefit from those three pieces of legislation, and some of it has been very difficult to get through the House because the Conservative Party does not want them to pass. They take up the time of the House to prevent the government from getting some of this important legislation done. That is why I spent as much time out of my 20 minutes refreshing the back benches of the Conservative Party on why they should not be doing this concurrence motion. They should have allowed the debate on Bill S-5. That is what would have been good for Canadians today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member helps me make my case.

Bill C-31 would provide dental care for children under the age of 12. If we did not bring the motion forward, between the Bloc and the Conservatives, the bill would never pass. The Conservatives were prepared to filibuster it.

What do members think Bill S-5 is all about? It is on the environment, and the Conservatives are sending a very strong message. The message is that they do not want to talk about the environment and they do not want legislation on the environment. That is why they have brought in the concurrence motion.

The two of them are tied together. They are both methods the government needs to get legislation through the House. The Bloc needs to understand why we got the support from the NDP to get Bill C-31 through. Maybe they should give us the support for Bill S-5. I do not think the Conservatives are going to help us. I would like to think the Bloc could be sensitive and caring about our environment.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague basically just spent 20, 30 or 40 minutes—I am not even sure, but it seemed endless to me—telling us that this does not make sense and that we should be talking about something really important with Bill S-5, namely, the environment. He said that it does not make any sense that the Conservatives are holding up the work and that they do not want us to debate an important subject.

Just yesterday, the Liberals on the other side of the House imposed a gag order on Bill C-31, a very important bill on housing and health.

Is my colleague not a little embarrassed?

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Milton for his question, but the debate today is on Bill C-22, not Bill C-31.

As I mentioned in my speech on Bill C-31, we have to look at the inflationary impacts of what we are doing. As I outlined in the suite of questions I posed, which I hope committee members and the government listened to, we need to do a full costing of this bill to see what impact it will have on Canadians and on Canadian taxpayers in the context of the inflationary period we are in right now.

Public Safety

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader's interest in the mayoralty campaign in Vancouver, but here in Ottawa, I have a very specific question for the member across. We have an opportunity in Bill C-31, and I ask him whether the Conservatives are going to agree to provide dental care for Canadian children across the country. It is bad enough that they will not support it. Why will they not just let members of this House, the majority of whom support it, be there for Canadians and be there for children who need dental care?

Taxation

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we are well aware that Canadians are dealing with a major increase in the cost of living. That is why we put measures in place to support Canadians, but the Conservatives decided to vote against them.

A few days ago, the Conservatives did a U-turn and finally decided to support our tax relief proposal to double the GST credit for 11 million Canadian families. Will they do it again and support Bill C‑31, which we are studying today?

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C-31

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise in the House and speak for the people of Timmins—James Bay. It is very powerful that we are having this discussion today on trying to move forward with dental care legislation and protection for Canadians who are low-income renters, in the midst of constant obstruction from both the Conservatives and the Bloc.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Today, as we are discussing dental care, let us put it in context for people back home. We will be voting this afternoon on the New Democrat motion to take on “greedflation”, to actually shine a spotlight onto the massive level of profits that are being made as ordinary working-class Canadians and senior citizens cannot pay their grocery bills.

This morning, Galen Weston suddenly had his moment on the road to Damascus and announced that although he was not completely willing to stop the price gouging, he was going to put a price freeze on all of his No Frills products. Nice, Galen. It is nice to know that when the New Democrats start putting pressure on, the big grocery giants are starting to jump.

We are not done with it. We see that inflation has been hitting in two key areas. One is obviously at the grocery stores, and the other is at the pump. Those are the two sectors that have had unprecedented levels of profits over the last year. It is inexcusable for giants like Galen Weston and big oil to claim that they are just responding to the crisis that has been caused by the Ukrainian war and inflation, when what we are actually seeing is “greedflation”. Whenever the price at the pump has been dropping, we have been seeing that inflationary pressures have dropped.

Internationally, we see efforts in the EU, California and the United Nations, pushing for a windfall tax, to say that this upper level of profit, this unprecedented level of profit, is coming out of the pocketbooks of people who cannot afford to pay it and should be paid back. That is something that is happening at the international level. We have not seen the government go anywhere near that, but it would be interesting today to see whether the Conservatives and the Liberals will stand with us and actually take on “greedflation”.

I mention that because it is really important to frame how the New Democrats have come into this Parliament and how we have been proceeding.

When the Prime Minister called that completely unnecessary election last summer, in the summer of 2021, we went door to door and we listened to people, and we met family after family whose concerns were that their children could not get dental care. We met seniors who could not afford to get proper work done on their teeth.

We made a promise that if the Canadian people set up the cards in Parliament such that we had a minority Parliament, we would come back in and fight for a national dental care program. We ran on that, and we are delivering on that. We are very focused on that. I think it is very telling, because what obviously has my Conservative friends' backs up about this is that we are actually delivering.

We said that we were going to push for a doubling of the GST tax credit, because we need to get some money back into the pockets of citizens. We saw the Conservatives light their hair on fire, and then they flip-flopped, because how would they go home to their constituents and not say that they believed they should be entitled to having money come back?

What they have been doing is that they have a very different strategy from us. We are very focused on what we are doing. We announce what we are doing. We work on it. It is like siege warfare, I have to say, with the Liberals, dragging them kicking and screaming sometimes to do the right thing, but one can do that in a minority Parliament if one is focused.

We said we would get the dental care provisions in place, that we would double the GST tax credit and that we would get support for low-income renters, because they are unable to pay the bills at this increasing time of insecurity.

The Conservatives, for their part, God love them, love to jump down rabbit holes of conspiracy, to get people arguing about things that are completely inconsequential.

Obviously, we could not have this conversation without the new shadow critic for infrastructure. At a time when the issue of infrastructure and housing is the number one issue in the land, she is demanding an investigation into Pfizer, because she saw some crazy right-wing politician on YouTube making allegations. That is what the Conservative leader's new infrastructure critic is saying.

I remember when she was going on about the so-called Nuremberg Code and it took the very wise member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, whom I have a lot of respect for, to have to publicly say, “Being offered a vaccine that prevents serious illness and our governments' responses to COVID-19 are not the same as being tortured in a Nazi concentration camp.” He had to say that against a member of his own party.

I mention that because the politics of disinformation are about getting people upset so that they are not focused on what matters, and what matters right now are concrete solutions to addressing the growing financial gaps and insecurities.

If we want to talk disinformation, the front face of the Conservative movement in Canada right now is Danielle Smith. I mean, oh my God, where to begin? We find out now that she has been promoting pro-Russian, pro-Putin separatist propaganda. This is not acceptable when we see the horrific death rates, torture, killing and rape that are happening in Ukraine. However, she says that those who do not want to wear a mask are the most discriminated against people in the history of Canada. We need to see all leaders in this country standing up against Putin, because the economic devastation that is happening around the world is impacting us here. It is also from a basic human rights point of view that we need to stay focused.

Again, I mention this because this is the politics of disinformation that the Conservatives are opting for to cover the fact that they are not delivering real results for people. When we came in and said we were going to double the GST tax credit, the Conservative leader said that if we gave money to working-class people or senior citizens to help pay their bills, the money would be somehow “vaporized”. That was the term he used.

“Vaporized” is a magical Conservative economic term, kind of like cryptocurrency, and if we are talking about what got vaporized, how about the $1 trillion in crypto savings that disappeared after the Conservative Party leader told people to invest their savings in cryptocurrency? That is vaporization. What New Democrats are doing is delivering.

Today, we are hearing a million reasons Conservatives are telling ordinary Canadians they should not have dental care, and that it is not necessary. However, the bill before us today will affect 500,000 children who do not have access to dental care, and that is an enormous number of children who deserve it. We see that 50% of low-income Canadians have no dental care services, and only one-third of Quebeckers have private dental care insurance.

For anyone who has a child who needs their teeth fixed, it is an incredible pressure, and I know from talking to families about how they try to find ways to get dental care. However, this year, Bill C-31 will give two payments to low-income families with children under 12. This is not the full solution, but it is the interim step that is necessary in order to get this program in place. This was in our supply agreement with the Liberals.

Now, it must be said that just because we have a supply agreement with the Liberals does not mean that we get along with the Liberals. This is about pushing these guys, because I have to say that pushing Liberals to actually do something is like wrestling with the Teletubbies. Just trying to even get something to grip on with a Liberal is difficult at the best of times, but in this minority Parliament, we found where it was needed and we knew it was on dental care. This year, we pushed them. We actually pushed these Teletubbies and we are going to get that money to low-income families, but that is only the beginning. We need this national program because senior citizens have a right to it and ordinary working-class people have a right to it. We need to move on this.

Therefore, while my colleagues on the other side are going to jump down the rabbit holes of conspiracy and YouTube nut jobbery, we will stay focused on getting kids their dental care, on getting money to the working class and seniors, and on taking on the grocery giants and greedflation.

I will be here all week and I am ready to take questions.

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

Madam Speaker, how can I say this? Gag orders, or time allocation motions in Parliament, are the nuclear option. That is what majority governments use most of the time to muzzle Parliament and put an end to debate, the exchange of ideas and everything citizens voted for on election day. That is why they should be avoided as much as possible. Because they are supposed to protect the work of the opposition, the opposition parties usually do not support gag orders.

However, in this 44th Parliament, we have now reached 23 stages of bills that have been fast-tracked. Four government motions were adopted under a gag order and there were also 17 other time allocation motions. Why is that? It is because we are caught up in some sort of parliamentary racket involving the Liberals and the new undemocratic party of Canada. We are talking here about undermining the work of Parliament.

We expected it to start in March, when the Liberals and the NDP reached their agreement, but it started with the Emergencies Act, when the NDP members were more than willing to stand up in the House one fine Monday, when there was not a single trucker left in the streets, and vote alongside the government for one reason only: to protect their seats. They did not want to justify their decisions to their constituents. They voted in favour of what were clearly human rights violations then, and they have done so ever since on things like budget bills.

We hear them yelling. As we all know, rubbing salt in the wound can be painful.

Then, they went on to ram through a number of bills and motions, all of which rejected Quebec. The NDP members allowed a gag order to be imposed on Bill C‑13 while the Bloc Québécois was asking, for example, that the Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Not only did they vote against us, they allowed for a gag order to be imposed to fast-track Bill C‑13. What is Bill C‑13? It will allow Michael Rousseau, Air Canada, Via Rail and Canadian National to determine the language in which they work in Quebec. What language is that? It is English.

That is the NDP. It is a far cry from the days of Jack Layton, the days the NDP wants to forget, back when they pretended to have principles. We know they have none. Indeed, principles are not supposed to change over time. What a far cry from the days when the NDP stated, in its Sherbrooke declaration, “The national character of Quebec is based...on...a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language”. Those are the words of the NDP, and yet, as I said, we are a far cry from that.

Do we know why they are constantly voting alongside the government? It is to keep their seats and to provide stability that the Liberal Party does not deserve considering the policies it is bringing forward, like Bill C‑31, which, to be perfectly honest, is badly done, poorly written and ill thought-out.

This shameful process, which the NDP supports, seeks to shut down the work of Parliament and muzzle parliamentarians. Without even getting into the content of Bill C‑31, we can see that the process that led to it was already tainted by some next-level dishonesty.

How do they proceed? As we know, the Liberals were not able to deliver a universal dental program last summer. As we know, this is not part of their skill set. They do not run establishments. Then, the leader of the NDP got angry. He lost it. He went to the media and threatened to destabilize the government. The Prime Minister got scared. They had a quick meeting to hastily slap together a piece of legislation, believing they could take some half-measure that will not even help families in Quebec or Canada with dental care—I will come back to that—and, in so doing, justify their existence.

Obviously that is unacceptable for Quebec. It not only infringes on its constitutional jurisdiction, but on its jurisdiction in general. This is not a federal jurisdiction.

To force it down our throats, the Liberals said they would include a small housing measure, that they would give people a nice little $500 cheque. They said that if we were to stand up for Quebec's interests and take the time to think before implementing such an ambitious program, they would go to our constituents and tell them that we voted against a bill that offered money for rent. Can my colleagues see how twisted the democratic process is getting? That is what is unacceptable.

Bill C-31 should have been split into two bills. We could have discussed housing separately and assessed that measure on its own merits. We could have discussed what they are calling “dental care”. They do not even understand their own bill. They think that there is something in it for teeth, but there is nothing. We could have discussed it separately if the bill had been split in two.

If the NDP were not afraid of what it is proposing, it would not be afraid to debate it here. It would not be afraid to use all the debate time provided for in the Standing Orders. It would not be afraid to hear from the other opposition parties, although we are no longer even sure if the NDP still counts as part of the opposition. Now we are in the House today, being silenced from talking about a bad bill.

I wondered if it was even worth sending the bill to committee for study, since the government was backing us into a corner by adding a housing assistance component. As we know, there is a housing crisis in Quebec. It is affecting Mirabel, and it is taking a toll on residents. I was in Saint‑Janvier last weekend, and residents there told me how hard the housing situation has been for them.

Like other parliamentarians, I thought that a small amount of $500 might help families in Mirabel. We are in a period of inflation, and a recession may be imminent, as the Liberal member mentioned in the previous question and comment period. However, neither the government nor the NDP has done its job. The Liberals and the New Democrats have not considered what the real impact of this bill would be on the ground. If they really wanted to help people, they would never have introduced a bill in this form.

This is what we did. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to determine what Quebec's part would be in this bill. As for me, I listen to Quebec. I am familiar with Quebec's programs and public policies. I stay informed. I know that the other provinces also have their own public policies. I am aware of all that, as the Liberal government should be. However, this government seems to be living in some kind of constitutional bubble where Quebec and the provinces do not exist and Ottawa delivers its decrees from on high. The Liberals failed to realize that Quebec already has a rent subsidy program.

Quebec already provides a rent subsidy to families with an income of $35,000 or less and to single people with an income of $20,000 who spend more than 30% of their income on housing. We therefore wondered whether the bill provided for an exclusion for Quebec. It is a good thing we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer about that because the Liberals could not care less about Quebec. They did not provide any numbers and did not even think to provide any because they have no interest in Quebec.

What did the Parliamentary Budget Officer have to say about that? He noted that some provincial and territorial programs provide social housing assistance that caps rent at 30% of household income. That means that 118,000 Canadians, 86,700 of whom live in Quebec, would not be eligible for the benefit.

Quebec has a solid social safety net. In Quebec, we do not subscribe to this niche leftist idea of individualism that promotes individual rights and stands up for people as separate individuals. We stick together. We have a social safety net that takes care of people. We thought about housing, unlike the government, which, with its national housing strategy, needs three, four or five years to negotiate. The strategy is taking so long to put in place that the government has to give people $500 to tide them over.

Once again we can see that Quebec is paying the price for doing the right thing and properly managing its affairs. The government is proposing a housing aid program in name only. A bit over $900 million will be paid out, with more than $200 million coming from the taxes that Quebeckers pay to Ottawa. There are fully 86,700 Quebeckers who are recognized in the bill as being vulnerable. I am talking here about vulnerable families and children. As we all know, a $35,000 annual salary for a couple with children is not much.

For a single person or a single mother, $20,000 a year is not much. These people will not qualify for the same assistance as other Canadians because not one Liberal MP stood up to defend Quebeckers and not one NDP member stood up to defend Quebec. Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant on October 4 when he said that the government had listened to the NDP's good ideas?

Will the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explain to his constituents who make less than $35,000 that they are among the 86,700 people who will not qualify for any assistance whereas all Canadians will be entitled to some assistance? Will he do that? Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant when he said, in his speech of October 4, “This is a minority government, and we used our position of strength to get results for people”?

Did he go to tell his constituents in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that, in the eyes of the Liberals, they are not people, they do not have a voice on this and they can take a hike, when Quebeckers pay Ottawa more than $200 million to help Ontarians and Albertans?

In Alberta and Ontario, it is easy to elect a right-wing government that does not do its job and does not maintain the social safety net, because they know that Ottawa will be trampling on their jurisdictions and do the work for them. However, in Quebec, we have our social safety net and we look after it. That is why Quebec must be able to opt out from these types of programs with financial compensation.

This is not an empty principle; it is for the good of the people. We are already managing the social safety net. We are doing more than others and we are prepared to take responsibility. We are prepared to bear the costs. However, when the federal government comes to do the same in the other provinces and Quebeckers already have programs that work and, moreover, are permanent, the money must be paid to Quebec. No one has risen to defend Quebeckers.

However, it gets worse: The member for Hochelaga is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing. As part of her work, she has to take small tours, attend small meetings, participate in small photo ops and talk about housing. Recently, in the House, she gave a speech on Bill C-31. She said, “In Hochelaga, 70% of the population consists of renters, with over 24% paying more than 30% of their income on rent.”

The member for Hochelaga could have stood up for Quebec, for Quebeckers from her region, from all our regions. She could have done the work. The same is true of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who never stands up for his people.

Will the member go into her riding and talk to single individuals who make $18,000 a year? Everyone else in Canada will get a housing benefit, but her constituents will not. There are people in her riding who need help and who are unable to get through the month with enough money to feed their children. Will she tell them that Quebeckers paid over $200 million to fund this program that will help those who voted for Doug Ford in Ontario? I hope she does. I hope she will be honest enough to do that. I am beginning to understand why the Liberals made their little deal to avoid an election. I can understand them not wanting to go to the polls and face voters.

Earlier, I asked the Minister of Health if he had told the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them. He talked to me about co-operative housing and all kinds of things. He stopped just short of saying the private sector was doing his job. He was completely unable to look me in the eye and tell me, through the Chair, that he was going to tell the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them, that he was not standing up for them, that he is in his bubble here in Ottawa and that his people are not important to him.

We have not even talked about the dental care component yet. The NDP wants a centralized, Canada-centric, Ottawa-centric program, a single solution for everyone. The days when the NDP wanted to win votes in Quebec are gone. The NDP no longer cares about Quebec, not now that it has just one seat left in the province.

Back in Jack Layton's day, the NDP wrote that “unity is not necessarily uniformity”. That is in the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration. Back then, the New Democrats had principles, they did their job, they stood up for their constituents and they at least appeared to stand up for Quebeckers the way they were supposed to. In chapter 3 of the declaration, it says, “The national character of Québec is based...on...its own political, economic, cultural and social institutions, including government institutions and institutions in civil society”.

When the NDP wrote that, was it telling Quebeckers that, the day it was shown the door for not doing its job as the opposition, it would come here to set up a kind of Canada child benefit enhancement that has nothing to do with teeth?

Basically, they are telling parents in Quebec and the rest of Canada that they are going to give them a set amount of money they could have gotten anyway, because the system already exists.

Just to satisfy our NDP friends, who are yelling—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that is being lost in this whole discussion about this dental program and Bill C-31 is the fact that in Ontario, for example, under Ontario's healthy smiles program, the government funds a dental program that provides free preventative, routine and emergency dental services for children and youth 17 years old and under in low-income families. That includes checkups, cleanings, fillings for cavities, X-rays, scaling and tooth extraction, and the list goes on. In fact, in my area of Simcoe County, the Simcoe County and Muskoka District health unit has a bus that visits schools to provide oral health care.

Is this really an issue of oral health for Canadian children, or is it just pure political crassness and political vote buying to offer this payment when many of these programs exist within the provinces or are covered by insurance companies?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cumberland—Colchester spoke about the $500 rental benefit in Bill C-31 being insufficient on its own. On that we agree.

I would appreciate hearing his perspective on the root cause behind the housing crisis we are in, which is corporate investors treating homes across the country like commodities. The governing party says it needs more time to study the issue while experts across the country are recommending we move forward with sensible measures, like removing tax exemptions for real estate investment trusts. It is a path that then Conservative finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, started down 13 years ago or more.

Can the member comment on a measure like this? I put it forward as Motion No. 71. It would move us toward a housing market that treats homes as places people live, rather than stocks institutional investors trade.